Is that the belt drive transport made by....CEC ?
Keith
Keith
The stable platter was flawed for several reasons.
The platter wasn't terribly high mass at all, but it was driven by low quality brushed Mabuchi motors and driven very hard to achieve reasonable start up and stop times, especially for the eject when the disc has to be stationary. The motors had a short life.
15 years worth of people putting CDs in, label side up was a tough habit to break and most customers thought it was strange.
Track access times (due to the mass of the platter) were poor compared to the linear motors etc on upper range competing brands.
Worst of all, the laser objective lens (which was glued on) would fall off in warmer climates/summer as it was suspended above the platter. Many machines failed that way. The lens could be glued back on, if you could locate it inside the machine...
They were physically chunky- short front to back and tall- not elegant at all.
The Legato link was poorly thought out too- bringing a machine to market that tested poorly was a bad idea.
Pioneer weren't alone in trying anything and everything to re-invigorate CD sales which had stalled- even Sony did an equally stupid fixed laser mechanism (CDP-XA5/7es) where they moved the entire operational disc drive with respect to the laser block. I shake my head.
I have Pioneer PD-8700 (stable platter, no legato) since 1992 and still working good (now as a transport).
Still regret selling my JVC XL-Z1050TN player
Did you just come here to troll the site or do you have something of value to contribute?Ah..... no. garnering headroom is not "a lazy recording engineer". And certainly not mosquitoes. (facepalm)
Please feel free to investigate thoroughly before making disparaging comments, especially about something that is standard practice in the industry. Like the Q fools say, do your research. Except in this case it is to become informed, not to become craaaaaaaazy lol.
The background sound level in my room is 35dB. Adding the 93dB or real 16-bit audio would need a capability of 128dB which is not only deafening but completely beyond the capacity of most domestic sound systems, though I have horns which are 109dB/watt.
I did.Ah..... no. garnering headroom is not "a lazy recording engineer". And certainly not mosquitoes. (facepalm)
Please feel free to investigate thoroughly before making disparaging comments, especially about something that is standard practice in the industry. Like the Q fools say, do your research. Except in this case it is to become informed, not to become craaaaaaaazy lol.
I have. I am not talking about what is just audible but what is enjoyable. I don't want the quiet bits of music to be at the level of the background noise in my room, and just test tones are purely academic (IMHO) what I am interested in is an enjoyable music recording which can be played by real equipment in my room.You can not just add these dB numbers together.
background noise of 35dB does not mean you can not hear any sounds < 35dB in that room.
My background noise levels are in 25-30dB range but I can clearly hear tones played at a much lower level. (Try it!)
Sorry I am young with new fangled electrobits and baffles and flimflams and the hat to match. Sadly I don't have your scorn to match.
I do love your explanation. but I'm not seeking your garbled explanation of recording formats. It's highly inaccurate. Also I hate mosquitoes.
I am all about 16/44.1, but in the studio I prefer 24/96 and lazy is not the word I would use.
Any moron is perfectly capable of managing input levels with current tech to an appreciable level. I am guessing even back in your day it was super easy. I mean if I think of really solid fails I would probably go back to Ray Charles I guess.
But there are plugins now that recommend the extra dynamic range just to use their processing, before considering any other advantages to extra headroom processing... but I don't wanna get started on this bs with anyone so defensive or uninclusive. Mostly I just don't get the need for derogatory comments. Sorry man, it's just not about levelling insults. I guess this forum is a pretty exclusive club and I will butt out in the face of...well...no comment. I'm gonna restrain myself. All apologies for jumping in at all. Maybe wind yourself back to 1970ish, perhaps your mind wasn't so closed then. I just don't get the need to be so patronising - what is the point? fuck debate right? Something about a dog and tricks..
Okay toodle-oo I have shit to do. Some unscientific critical listening. Like young ears can do..glad I entered the conversation here and it was so welcoming and open heh
You want to be right..I have. I am not talking about what is just audible but what is enjoyable. I don't want the quiet bits of music to be at the level of the background noise in my room, and just test tones are purely academic (IMHO) what I am interested in is an enjoyable music recording which can be played by real equipment in my room.
The reality is HiFi equipment fanatics going on about the last technically achieveable minutae of possibility forget two important facts.
Firstly almost nobody owns equipment or a room in which a recording with 120+dB of dynamic range coud be played and secondly there, luckily, aren't any.
Don't give a tuppenny f*ck whether I am right.You want to be right..
I give it to you....