TAS Recommended CD Tweak….

El, Shadorne, All,

How much error is inherent in error correction? Error correction tries to recreate the original through mathematical prediction, but most predictive mathematical models are not perfect, just good enough for the purpose.

Or is my understanding flawed?

Jim S.

You may all remember some of the earlier discussion of the Memory Player. If my memory serves, Robert Harley and others argued, as Shadorne has, that Read Until Right can not be the reason the player sounds good, if indeed it does. It's not about RUR for the reasons Shadorne outlines. And yet, there still seems to be something going on. Because Harley himself has said that copies can sound better.

I remember a little paragraph blurb in an early issue of Wired magazine in which they took aim at something Reference Recordings was doing (direct-to-CD, I think it may have been), claiming that clearly RR didn't understand digital technology or they wouldn't being doing what they were doing. Guess what? I'm pretty sure it was this author who didn't know what he was doing, who knew just enough about digital to be dangerous. These people are everywhere, trying to save us poor souls from the deceptions of charlatans. That's good, but things are often not as simple as they first appear to be.

Stilljd...Your understanding is flawed. Error correction is 100 percent up to the point where there are more errors than the code is set up for. The link that Shadorne provided is pretty good.

Another point...If an error occurs there is no extra time required to correct it. (Some have suggested that error correction causes the dreaded jitter). All the data with or without errors runs through the algorithm all the time.

ozzy & authursmuck, have ordered at your posted results to try (see my other post) I'm confident that it's going to make a nice difference and be cost effective in doing so.

El,

Yep, re-read the link with a different perspective and I understand the point.

Jim