|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: So... does one function better than the other? (n.t.) posted by rupertdacat on February 23, 2006 at 07:44:34:
...that would call for careful definition (I assume you mean, "sound better," or "sound just as good for a lower price") and direct comparison (for convenience), or at least for comparison of CD-Rs done from the exact same master disc to CD-Rs from the same pack of blanks, *without* any surface treatments, before or after. Your cited unit would have to be set for 4x reproduction to match the RealityCheckCD system. You would also have to assure like power supply, like isolation, like power cabling, and so on.There's a much larger question, though, since there are many other duplicating towers available. A quick Google reveals comparably-priced ($220 - $799) 2-drive duplicator stand-alones from Sony, Teac, Plextor, Pioneer, LG, NEC, CRI, Pinnacle Micro, Alera Technologies, and Addonics. Furthermore, you can make a trip to your local Frye's electronics and purchase your own SCSI/IDE two bay tower, the drives of your choice, and experiment with permutations of drives to your heart's content. This would allow you to tweak the tower and components internally: you could dampen the unit, apply contact enhancement, that sort of thing. I see no reason why your cited alternative is preferable to any of the units listed above...several of them are less expensive than your device.
Another complicating factor: some of these units come with hard drives, which allow the buffered storage of content. There are audiophiles and audio engineers who believe that this is an inherently better-sounding way of handling the source for PCM streams. (See, for example, Steve Nugent's essay, "Computer-Driven Audio: Is It Superior to Optical-Based CD Playback?" in Positive Feedback Online, Issue 22, at the link below.)
So the question is obviously one of practicality when it comes to the question of "Does this one 'function better' than that one?" There's no particular reason to choose your cited unit...there are even less expensive devices online...so it wouldn't be a question of "just spend a few bucks." I could see such a project taking $3,000 - $4,000 and months of effort for a thorough study, the only thing that would be worthwhile to me. Unfortunately, it's certainly not feasible for Positive Feedback Online.
And then, as I said, there's the question of whether or not we ought to be testing hard drive-based duplicators as a possibly superior solution.
You could suggest the project to Consumer Reports, though....
;-)
Remember that a review does not have to be *exhaustive* to be *indicative*. If we had to know everything to know anything, we'd be in a sad way.
An audio journal does not have to review other alternatives to be able to review a given product. All audio reviewing...for that matter, all of human experience...is contingent, and bounded by limitations and what's feasible. You do the best you can--as Bob and Clark have done--you keep an open mind, you do follow-ups when you can, and you keep moving.
Regards,
david
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "Function better" is an evaluation... - David W. Robinson 02/23/0610:23:39 02/23/06 (4)
- You have missed the point... - rupertdacat 20:16:22 02/23/06 (3)
- Yawn... - David W. Robinson 20:37:42 02/23/06 (2)
- Groan... - rupertdacat 21:12:14 02/23/06 (1)
- You make some good points, rupe... - David W. Robinson 22:03:53 02/23/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
