Quote:
1. The very TacT device you mention was reviewed in Stereophile.
2. How can ExactCopy improve the sound quality of an undamaged CD?

Kal

Cd read errors aren't just a result of damage to the surface, they can be a result of mechanical vibration of the
transport mechanism, laser tracking error, out of round cds etc etc. The fundamental problem of any transport is the fact that data must be extracted in real time and if errors occurr these values must be "guessed" using error correction algorithms. Having a Physics backround, when the notion that a copy could be better than the origonal was first suggested, I found the notion ludricrous. The fact that EAC can read and reread on numerous passes combined with the fact that the laser angle can be adjusted on each pass means that it is indeed possible that the copy is more accurate than the origonal. Imagine, if you will, written text that has been damaged or is so small as to be "almost" unreadable. Or... maybe your eyeglasses prescription is no longer effective. If you had to read it quickly there might be instances were you misinterpret or misread. If you have time to examine closely and reread over and over you may be able to extract the exact words (at the expense of continuity and overall comprehension). But once the words are understood one could in theory recreate a new and pristine copy (maybe with larger text) which is easily readable.
Gerry
Ps The above analogies are obvious oversimplifications but I believe they make the general point.

Actually Kal,
There is another factor involved: the Squeezebox.
The fact that the Squeezebox is also able to transmit bit perfect data may be where the real improvement lies. The same problem exists for data transmition as exists for reading ie. ERRORS. The squeezebox is able get the data from one place to another with no errors and it is able to to do this very cheaply by taking advantage of current technologies:
a) by using the 2 way comunication of the ethernet to test and correct transmission errors
b)by buffering the data stream so that it does not need to do this in real time.

The bottom line is that I DIDN'T EXPECT ANY IMPROVEMENTS IN SOUND AT ALL by going to a PC based system. The improvements were a surprise and not in any way a result of a placebo effect (which I believe is a huge factor in HiFi).I had done my homework of course (researched EAC and the Squeezebox etc) but I was really only aiming for equaling a decent cdp with the added browse/playlist potential of a computer. I simply happened to be listening one day (about a year after adding making any other changes to my system besides going the PC/sqeezebox) when I notices that the sound had "solidified" in a way that I had never experienced before. In fact it was while listening to the remaster of Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms". The rolling thunder at the begginning of the track sounded so utterly real and substantial that it literally sounded/felt as thought thunder clouds were actually rolling through my apartment. After this I began to notice and criticaly listen for other improvements to the sound. The first and most obvious example was that highs now had an analog quality and had lost the digital "edge" that has been the bain of digital since it's inception. I could go on and on but suffice to say that I consider this discovery particularly credible because there was no "placebo" effect at all (I wasn't expecting it) and the improvements were NOT subtle. My current system (PC/Squeezebox/Big Ben/Dac1) UTTERLY smokes my previous Resolution Audio CD50 and Classe CD10.
Gerry

Ps Reread my above post. I modified it and added some important points about the Tact.

Quote:
1. The very TacT device you mention was reviewed in Stereophile.

Kal

I did note that the first generation Tact was reviewed by Stereophile but I'm surprised that the technology hasn't been followed. While room correction technology represents a substantial step forward in "hi fidelity", when combined with it's digital crossover capabilities the potential is nothing short of revolutionary. Currently speakers must be designed with high and low drivers in the same box in order to achieve proper time and phase integration. The problem is that this involves substantial compromises in terms of the physical placement of the speaker. Placing the speaker near a wall or in the corner improves bass efficiecy, time coherance and minimizes constructive/destructive wave interferance but results in compromized high frequency performance. In order to optimize the high frequency performance (imaging) the speaker needs to be placed away from room boundries and thus bass response is compromised. In addition the drivers must be integrated with electronic analog crossovers which add substantial colourations.
Current digital technology allows the drivers to be housed in separate enclosures and placed in their respective optimal postitions by:
1) digitally crossing the drivers
2) digitally correcting for time a phase

That means woofers can be optimally placed in the corners and integrated seamlessly with remote high frequency satelites placed futher into the room. The Tact 2.2x allows one to do this and the results are both theoretically and practically revolutionary. The main improvement with a this type of system (according to people who have tried it) is in the area of improved bass clarity, speed and time coherance while retaining imaging, correct timbre etc etc. In fact, if I was to upgrade my system, it would involve going this route with a Tact 2.2x, corner loaded woofers and a pair of high frequency satelites (I wish NHT still made the Super Zero. With almost no bass it would be perfect in such a system)
Gerry

Oops Kal,
I posted before I read your responce. One point you make which is important is that the technologies I have alluded to are indeed not "currently" mainstream and thus subject to the inertia historically associated with change. My father, who grew up with tubes and was around for advent of stereo, makes an interesting historical point. He claims that people initially resisted the introduction of "stereo". People had grown so accustomed to the "in a barrel" sound of mono speakers that they believed that stereo sounded "unatural". That may explain why, when I bring this stuff up
over at Audio Asylum I get lots of flac.
Gerry

Ps I also didn't notice that the modifications (re Tact) to my second post didn't take. Hence the last post.

I guess I didn't title my initial post very well. What I should have said is "Why aren't current revolutionary digital technologies a point of focus".

Gerry

Ps I had read JA's review and my only quibble is that to my ears, as a transport, the squeezebox is not only the equal of any conventional transport I've ever heard, but indeed better. The diffence may be because, before my processors (Tact and Benchmark), I run the Squeezebox into a the Big Ben reclocking device.(and I use EAC, not iTunes)

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
1. The very TacT device you mention was reviewed in Stereophile.

Kal

I did note that the first generation Tact was reviewed by Stereophile but I'm surprised that the technology hasn't been followed.

Considering it ain't yet mainstream, I also covered the NHT xD speakers, Audyssey EQ in the Denon AVR and the Meridian MRC in the Ref861.

Kal

Point taken.
The NHT review did catch my eye and prompted me to wonder why Tact doesn't hook up with a great speaker manufacturer and come up with a digitally crossed/corrected speaker system and while we're at it... let's make the dang thing active too!

Gerry

Ps Active speakers are another obvious area where the audophile community has missed the boat. (I had a pair of Paradigm Active 40s that, at that price point, were utterly mind boggling (Tact corrected to tame the bass of course)).