[Review] CD lathe update

As Above and Now edited !

 

Depending on what precisely you mean by this, I say be careful! To me there are not many absolutes when it comes to comparing one version of a sonic presentation to another, but this is one - that if two representations differ in the apparent width of the "soundstage", the narrower is usually more correct, contrary to popular opinion.

The wider may be more fun, but distortions of any kind contribute to the sense of width, except in the case of beyond-speaker trickery, like "Q-sound".

In fact a quick test of imaging capability that should always be used (whenever feasible) in setting up speaker placement in a room is the mono test. I really believe that you are wasting your time judging setup by listening to stereo - even if you have no mono button on your preamp.

Most amplifiers can tolerate the load of two speakers in parallel at low volumes. Do this and then judge set up by the narrowness of the mono phantom image. Once the narrowest, tightest image has been achieved you can be sure that this is the best set up position for stereo. Check it out!

Russell

 

Sorry don't buy that one ....a squashed and narrow central image is not correct in my book.... try this

test one

play your fav disc in a good cd player note the stereo separation imaging etc then get a budget unit and do the same 9/10 time the cheapo unit will have less stereo separation and ill defined imagine

test two

this is easy to do ....take one high end bit of kit remove the good quality components and fit with bog standard types re listen ....you will now hear a narrower sound stage.

damn if your correct the I've been doing it all wrong all these years [35 plus] ... I should be trying to make things sound more mono ..hmmmm I think not

but you are right about the speaker setup being easier in mono... though for a different reason

Don't like the sound of running your mega buck amp into almost no ohms .... sounds like a recipe for frying your amp ...try running your average valve amp with no speakers attached that will do it to ....love the smell of cooked transformers in the morning...

 

... then I'm guessing you would like the "imaging" on spaced omni recordings, like the famous Wilma Cozart Fine Mercury pressings.

As a recording engineer pretty dedicated to real stereo (very purist Blumlein recordings) I take imaging very seriously, as I did 35 years ago when I made my living designing speakers.

What I am talking about is not "squashed" so much as "defined". Somewhat equivalent to sharp vs. soft focus in cameras, but all this is fuel for a different thread, so sorry for the off-topic-ness.

 

may be you word your post badly ...

I only want to extract whats on the disc black or silver which the artist wanted us to hear ....hopefully with a sympathetic recording engineer following there instructions.

I agree ....in that if its a mono recording ...you want to hear it in mono even from a stereo setup....

Here's a recent example that might clear things up ....

I had a cdp brought to me ....not expensive but from a well known brand ....

it sounded nasal, and shut in with most music played on it though it did have a well defined imaging ability. he sound was locked between the speakers and very low in height. Now if this was the only cdp I had we would have had to accept its presentation of the music as what was intended. Fortunately a quick play using a machine of 8x budget showed that the budget machine was compromised.

replacing a number of the parts within the budget unit brought the level of performance 75% of the way to the more costly player .....the central image remainded tightly focused but everything else expanded rather than a 2d illusion there was now obvious depth and scale you could clearly make out all the threads of the music that were previously a jumble in the centre of the image. Also there was a feeling that the sound was no longer locked between the speakers. I'm not saying the central image had become larger or less focused.

Back to the point of the thread ...when a lathed disc was used on the same unit it was as if we had carried out further mods in that focus placment and air were all improved bringing to life the performance. Where previously it seemed the musicians had been just going through the motions [which I'm certain they were not on the original recording] it was clear that they were enjoying the experience.

I agree you can mess with the stereo effect ...I can do this on my deq ......but its clear the music is being "stretched thin" between the speakers .

I suspect we are talking of different effect.

 

ok guys - sorry to larkrise for the delay in this review (he kindly lathed a cd for me - brothers in arms) - I had a mini bake off at mine today and I did some blind testing of this and everyone agreed that the lathed version was better...amongst the comments - everyone liked the bigger soundstage and clarity of the music one the cd...a great result in all!

cheers

 

Smug smile. . . . . hey Zanash lets form a Club!

 

I am waiting for some CD copies from sceptic friends in Portugal, I will let you know their findings, but they are so biased that it will take BIG differences for them to admit...

 

The cd lathe supporters club ?

I've had chance to demo in two more systems over this week ..one a naim two box cdp system [cdx ?] though this was not as clear cut as in other player it was evident that the lathed cd had more air and space [less confused] this was a suprise for me as I though the naim was immune.
The other was an elderly chaps quad 66cdp34/306 combo via monster lowther horns...even with his partial deafness he could hear a change in percieved volume, space, timing.....