🚀 go-pugleaf

Lee HC wrote in message <01be2f32$c2fec7a0$LocalHost@default>...
>
>
>Arny Kr�ger <arnyk@flash.net> wrote in article
><o8jg2.640$ok1.1540@news.flash.net>...
>>
>> If you define "good" as "free of audible distortion and noise", then this
>> would have to be true, right?
>>
>>
>> >2. How to ensure an "ideal" CD players performed ideally in domestic
>setting.
>> Then, who need "ideal" CD players?
>>
>> Nobody. All we need is CD players that are free of audible distortion and
>> noise. They already exist and have existed for well over a decade.
>
>
>Arny,
>
>Just a few interesting points to discuss :
>1. How do you define & measure "audible distortion" ?

See my web site for about 60 examples: http://www.pcavtech.com.

>2. When you mention "free of audible distortion and noise", do you mean 0%
>distortion & noise ?

No , I just mean below the well-known and documented thresholds of audiblity.

>3. When you mention "good" CD players sound the "same", how many "% of
>identical" are you talking ?

I have not done thorough tests of enough CD players to know that with any
certainty, yet. I hope to have tested far more players by the end of January.

>Frankly, as a tube lover, my definition of "good" seemingly have not much
>co-relationship with "distortion".

Whatever winds your clock! ;-)


>At least, I can't build a HiFi room of "ideal" acoustic.

True.

>Distortion is "inevitable" in my non-ideal domestic setting.

True, by why add more than is necesary?

>So, I don't use the term "distortion" to measure my system.

I don't either. The measure of my system is my perception that it sounds good.


>For me, "good" is close to my "personal believe" based on my "personal
>experience" of live performance & domestic HiFi audition. So, "good" is
>simply "good" to me & may not be "good" to other.

Me, too!