home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / rec / audio / 19317 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-24  |  1.3 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!noc.near.net!news.bbn.com!NewsWatcher!user
  2. From: shetline@bbn.com (Kerry Shetline)
  3. Newsgroups: rec.audio
  4. Subject: Re: Why would CD carousel sound worse than single-play?
  5. Message-ID: <shetline-240193114223@128.89.19.90>
  6. Date: 24 Jan 93 16:43:34 GMT
  7. References: <1993Jan22.104313.15975@microsoft.com> <1993Jan23.122954.29893@microsoft.com>
  8. Followup-To: rec.audio
  9. Organization: BBN
  10. Lines: 18
  11. NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
  12.  
  13. In article <1993Jan23.122954.29893@microsoft.com>, davidl@microsoft.com
  14. (David Long) wrote:
  15. > However, I'm still interested in knowing if there are technical
  16. > limitations to the carousel platter approach that degrade the 
  17. > sound compared to a single-play drawer.  Are there?
  18.  
  19. I hate to be absolute about anything, but at close to the same probalistic
  20. tolerances that I reserve for, oh, wondering whether my entire existence is
  21. a hallucination, I would say... NO!
  22.  
  23. Even the people who think that CDs need to be clamped, weighted, and
  24. stabilized so as to be vibration free within the limits the Heisenberg
  25. Uncertainty Principle would probably admit to the *possibility* of a good
  26. carousel. It would cost, however, more than $25,000 (DAC outboard and
  27. extra, of course) and weigh enough to require special structural redesign
  28. in most homes.
  29.  
  30. -Kerry
  31.