Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- From: Dave Giles <spam@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:25:50 +0100
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> Given that you can buy 24/96 sound cards for your PC which demonstrate
> more than 100dB dynamic range, that wouldn't seem to be much of an
> issue for 16/44 CD.
>
Maybe those sound cards are pretty well shielded - I don't know. I know that
the Linn Tunboks uses a conventional PCI sound card (albeit a Linn
soundcard, as conventional as that makes it), so I appreciate that a PC
which doesn't interfere with it's analogue output isn't impossible.
However, my point is that there have been no assurances from Cambridge
Audio that this is the case.
>>>> 4) change the CD transport
>>>
>>> What possible difference would that make?
>>>
>>No difference to the actual product as regards electrical noise, or
>>whatever (though if there is, that wasn't what I was getting at). My only
>>problem with the transport is that CA appear to be pushing the 640H as a
>>640C with a hard disk ('...incorporates the high-quality CD player from
>>the Azur 640C...' - read that as you will), when it seems that the only
>>similarity between the two players is (essentially) the DAC. A number of
>>postings on the CA forums indicated that some people did think that this
>>was, basically, a replacement for the 640C.
>
> But why do you think that the 640C actually does have a different
> transport mechanism from the 640H?
>
> Bear in mind that the ten grand Meridian 800 series uses a standard 20
> quid CD-ROM drive...........
>
The drives are cosmetically different - the drive drawer on the 640H is
deeper than that of the 640C. Given that the Azur range has a distinctive
style, to deviate from this style implies that there is some other
restriction in place, ie, it's a different drive. Besides, the 640H has a
VIA mobo installed - the drive connecting to this will be a regular
IDE-interfaced jobbie (assuming CA haven't re-written the spec for a CD-ROM
interface and got VIA to implement it), which the transport in the 640C
isn't.
I suspect that the CD-ROM drive used by Meridian may have been a bit more
than a stock £20 special. However, Meridian did also re-write the CD-ROM
controller software (although the interface remains the same) to get better
control of the spin speeds of the drive. Maybe (just maybe) this is what
Cambridge Audio have done - but there's certainly no evidence of it (and
they're not saying). So what we've got is a CD-RW drive which spins right
up to 52x - or whatever - making it useless as a regular CD player as it'd
be too noisy, and certainly not comparable with the 640C as a straight CD
player.
>>>> 5) build wireless in
>>>
>>> What, you want *more* internal noise?
>>>
>>Ok - I meant build wireless into the basic spec of the product; I
>>envisaged the aerial on the outside. Although would a transmitter in close
>>proximity transmitting at 2.4GHz have an effect on an audio signal?
>
> It's a powerful RF source - who knows what intermodulations might
> occur? And what's the point, in a domestic installation?
Is there a reason for not using wireless in a domestic installation?
Granted, these are criticisms of a product which is yet to be released; the
point of this post was to raise issues (both actual and potential) with the
640H (and to make a point about their removal of their forums).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- From: Stewart Pinkerton
- Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- References:
- Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- From: Dave Giles
- Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- From: Stewart Pinkerton
- Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- From: Dave Giles
- Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- From: Stewart Pinkerton
- Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- Prev by Date: Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- Next by Date: Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- Previous by thread: Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- Next by thread: Re: Cambridge Audio - an open letter [long]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|