DAC Differences
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 11/23/2012 2:07 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 11/21/2012 1:43 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno.
I don't know either.
To understand it, I'd
(1) Run enough tech tests so that I knew what the measureable differences
in
the actual samples were, including tracking, error recovery and
concealment.
**Whilst I did not perform a comprehensive range of tests, I did perform
some rudimentary ones (THD, S/N, FR, et al). No audibly significant
issues were uncovered in either machine.
(2) Do one or more time synched, level matched, bias controlled listening
test.
**Done.
Until you do all of the above, its like hitting a ball out of the park in
baseball, and then failing to circle the bases and physically touch every
one.
If you don't touch all the bases, there is no home run.
**Fair point. Nonetheless, the Marantz CD80 was a real surprise. Since
that time, I've tested a few other machines in the same set-up. None
have provided the superior qualities noted in the Marantz.
That is interesting, given that 20 year-old DAC technology was still
pretty primitive. I don't doubt you though. I'm sure you hear what you
say you hear.
**It is important to put the CD80 into it's correct perpective.
Marantz/Philips put a great deal of effort into this machine. Their
premium DAC chips were used (so-called 'Single Crown' variants of their
DACs), their best quality, swing arm transport, decent power supplies,
etc, etc. It was a significant jump up from their first generation
machines.
Yet there are those who post here who will dismiss those reasons for the
Marantz sounding superior, out of hand!
I had a chance recently to audition, in my own system, the original Sony
CDP-101 CD player. Boy is it god-awful sounding! Screachy highs, no
soundstage, in other words, downright fatiguing to listen to. It is,
however, built like a tank.
**I keep a CDP101 for people who imagine that all CD players sound the
same. It was, indeed, a shocker.
Yet one person who posts here said, not to long ago, that he has one and
thinks it sounds just like any other CD player.
Now I remember why I bought the little
Magnavox CD-100 instead. It was only 14-bit but it sounded so much
better than any of the first generation Japanese players. Still does. I
still have mine and although it's not in my system any more, I pulled it
out to compare it to the Sony CDP-101. It's not the last word in
resolution any more, but it still sounds just fine, thank you. Very
listenable. If I had a vacation home, I wouldn't hesitate to build a
small system around it (although, on second thought, a vacation home
system would be better served by an iPod or a computer-based music
system).
**I know of a few pople who like those early generation
Marantz/Philips/Magnavox machines. I have not heard one for many years,
so I can't comment.
They were the best sounding of all the early players. Of course a lot of
the criticism of early CD reproduction was a result of the early CDs
themselves. I still have an early Deutsche Grammophon CD of Von Karajan
and the Berlin Philharmonic playing Richard Strauss' 'Alpine Symphony'.
Even on a very good modern player (my Sony XA777ES) it sounds like crap.
Nothing could fix that ear-bleedingly bright screech! My understanding
was that many early AAD and ADD discs were simply mastered from tapes
EQ'd to cut LPs. That would go a long way toward explaining a lot of
early CD's shortcomings, but that Sony CD-101 takes the cake for BAD
sound! Anyone who would say that thing sounds fine has no business
rendering audio opinions!
|