Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

	Sure, I'm interested in more of the technical side - but also:
				How does it sound?

Oh, my God.  You've got to be kidding.

Even if it is true, it sounds like TOTAL BULLS**T.  I wish Bob Carver would
make something that works conventionally for once.  Hey, I have nothing
personal against the guy - I own a m1.5t, and I think it's a fantastic
amplifier.  But I wish his owner's manuals didn't sound like a sales
brochure for a spaceship.

				VAM

Enough with this L+R and L-R stuff.  A CD carries TWO signals: L and R.
Assuming a direct digital recording with two microphones (a Telarc disk,
for example), the L channel carries what the L microphone heard, AND
NOTHING ELSE.  Likewise the R channel carries what the R mic heard,
AND NOTHING ELSE.

The appearance of "virtual" signals of L+R, L-R, R-L, .3L+.7R, or
whatever, occur in the space between your loudspeakers and your ears.

As for "Spectral energy balance", if you think the midrange is too
hot, tweak your loudness knob a hair - it changes exactly that balance.

What one hears when listening to a playback of a stereo recording is
not just simple L and R signal that meet at the listeners ear.  If this
were the case a left could be recorded at one time and the right channel
recorded at another time and the result would be the same as if they were
recorded at the same time.  There is a whole series of events that happen
mostly with phasing and summing of the L and R signal.  If you are
familiar with the halfler effect when hooking up speakers a listener can 
hear the L + R signal that  is being heard by the listener without hearing
the L-R component.    What happens with the Hafler effect is that all signals
that are common to both channels cancel and what is left are the signals that
make up the stereo imaging.  Stereo playback is not as simple as L and R
signals..  At one time recordings were made with distinctive left and right
signals(for this try listening to old Beatles recordings which were known
for this affect) but after recording engineers determined this was not 
true to high fidelity they started blending L + R signals to create
more ambience during playback.  Even if the recording is made with
two microphones (one left and one right) the left channel records some
features that are also recorded one the right channel and vice-versa.
The result is a series of time delays and reflections that give that 
true-to-life sound.

As with any component the test is in the listening.  With the time lens
there is a definate difference and I prefer the use of this component
because the depth and smoothness of the resulting music are easier
to listen to and appear to be truer to life than without it.
I don't advocate the use use of gimmics for gimmics sake, but a component
works and does what it says it does then let it be.          ^when

I don't believe in handmade cartridges when the Shure V15 type 5 MR
will do the same, if not better for a much more reasonable cost.

--Dale (I've probably crucified myself with this note!)

What is the cost of the Time Lens?  B.J.

Phono cartridges and tape decks tend to have high frequency phase
differences between the left and right channels.  Its easy to observe
these when playing a test record or tape with a dual trace scope
or with an X-Y lissajous pattern on a scope.  Different test records
show slight differences in phase as well (as well as probable differences
between samples of one manufacturers test records; I've played with
B+K and CBS test records).

I've noticed that phase differences between the channels give a
false sense of 'air' to the sound, this is one of the things that
makes different phono cartridges sound different.  Its easy to hook
up a pair of adjustable all-pass networks and listen to the sonic
effects - it noticibly effects imaging without altering the tonal
balance.  The time lense probably plays games with all pass
networks; big deal.

Also, dither is worthless unless its added before the signal is
digitized.

Its all a matter of what sound quality you're used to; if the phase
differences and other euphonic coloration is the norm, then the CD will
sound unnatural by comparison.

- Jim

	What effect does the listeners location have on the effect of
the time lens? Also, is the effect recordable, as the sonic hologram is?
I would think that the answers are none, and yes respectively, but am
curious if this is the case. I would be interested in a blind test of a
CD with and without the time lens, and the same recording on an analog
turntable, to see which one is prefered. 

First, the cost of the time lens is $225.  The location of
the listener is only as critical as it is with regular stereo
playback and NOT as critical as it is with the sonic hologram
feature.  The time lens does make a difference even without a 
blindfold comparison and the camparison between a compact disk with
the time lens and a good analog source no difference except for
clarity and a cleaner high end form the compact disk.  I used 
Joni Mitchell Court and Spark LP by Nautilus with a Stanton 880s
cartridge to compare.  I have ordered a Shure V15 type5 MR and
I will report on the comparison between the LP and the compact
disk once again when the cartridge arrives.  I also compared 
George Winstons Autumn by Windham hill and found no difference
attributable to the Time Lens.   The small difference of the L+R
signal of 1.15 dB equates to a 33% loss of this signal at the 
loudspeaker(recall power is proportional to the voltage squared).

All the features of the Time Lens are recordable for use on a cassette
tape or reel-to-reel unit.

When I first purchased my disk player(Technics SL-P8) I was 
exstatic over the clarity and the clearness of the sound and 
deemed that the disk was superior to the LP and that all this
BS over sample rates and phase distortion was just some 
esoteric highend snobs personal problem.  I still feel that way
about most of the complaints about CDs.  After owning the player
for several months I started noticing the Hot midrange and the flat
-ness of the sound and started going back to listening to LPs
more often until I read about the time lens.  Now with the Time Lens
I find I listen to the disks much more often than the LPs.  All I can
say is go listen for yourself and make your own decision,  I like the
sound with the Time Lens just as I like the sound with a DBX compressor/
expansion unit.  For those who believe in stereo being just L and R ind
ependent signals how come in never sounds that way at a live performance
by the BSO or whom ever is playing? Or why does a system with a time 
delay unit set up on it sound so much better than plain stereo?


I not trying to criticize anyone, I'm only trying to make people 
aware of the complexities involved with trying to create a sound
that is the equal of a live performance.  I hope no one takes
offense.

--Dale