NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/rec/audio/16655

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-14 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!wilbur.nas.nasa.gov!fineberg
From: [e-mail] (Samuel A. Fineberg)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Mobile Fidelity....
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:33:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Administrator)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: na
Organization: CSC, NASA Ames Research Center, NAS Division
Lines: 53

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Mathes) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
|> >
|> >In article <[e-mail]>,
|> >[e-mail] (Len Reed) writes:
|> >
|> >[regarding MFSL gold discs]
|> >|>
|> >|>Anyway, no one has offered any reason to believe that gold discs would
|> >|>produce fewer raw errors, perhaps leading to fewer uncorrectable errors.
|> >|>Since disc players are made with aluminum discs in mind, it seems likely
|> >|>that gold discs would be no better, and perhaps worse, than aluminum ones.
|> >|>It reminds me of those idiot CD rings that add mass to the discs: they
|> >|>only reason they don't break players or make for more errors is that there's
|> >|>enough tolerance in the players that they aren't adversely affected.
|> >|>I suspect gold discs are the same.
|> >|>
|> >
|> >The claim is that, since gold is a more malleable material than aluminum,
|> >the gold foil will adhere more closely and more smoothly to the pits in the
|> >CD, thus providing a better surface to be read by the laser, and reducing the
|> >number of read errors.  As far as I know, nobody has ever conducted experiments
|> >to test this hypothesis.  I noticed that MFSL has stopped making this claim
|> >in their packaging of Ultradiscs.  I think maybe the Federal Trade Commission
|> >got after them and told them to either back up the claim with facts or to stop
|> >making it.
|> >
|> >For both CD rings and gold plating, another claim that has been made by their
|> >proponents is that, although the error correction logic may correct any read
|> >errors, the invocation of this circuitry leads to second-order jitter effects
|> >in the power supply of the CD player, effects that are picked up by the DAC
|> >and analog components of the player and that result in audible distortion.
|> >Once again, there haven't been any properly conducted studies to determine
|> >the validity of the claim.
|> >
|> >--PSW
|>
|> I own a few of these discs.  The gold metalization does have one
|> advantage over aluminum: it can't oxidize over time.  It may be
|> a remote chance, but if there's a defect in sealing a standard
|> CD, the aluminum layer will eventually oxidize and make the
|> CD useless.  A similar defect in the MF discs will not cause
|> a problem, since the gold won't oxidize.
|>
|> As for sound quality, I do notice a difference.  I listened, back
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm not surprised about this, but it isn't the gold.  Its the fact that
MF did a better analog->digital mastering.  Tranfering analog discs to digital
is hard, and can easily be botched.  The mastering has a lot more effect on the
sound you hear than the metal used, whether you use stabilizer rings, or
even how good your CD player is.

Sam