And my opinion is that both those players are probably good
enough, barring defects, that they would be audibly indistinguishable,
whatever you think you may have heard.

I agree, and I HAVE made the comparisons.
Steve Grauman

That's because you're comparing the DAC in your receiver with the DAC in
your receiver. Indeed, those different players could conceivably have
the same transport mechanism.

If you're buying CD players costing thousands of dollars, it's a given you've
got the high end processor, complete with good DACs, to match. Chances are,
these players will be connected optically, and the processor's DAC will be
doing the conversion work. Nonetheless, I've also done some experimenting where
the players were connected via analog connection, and guess what? There was no
sonically distinguishable difference. People who "swore" they could hear a
difference - when they knew which player was being used - suddenly couldn't
identify one from another or even be positive that we had changed CD players
when they were forced to look away from the players for listening tests.
Steve Grauman

wrote in message ...
Chung wrote:
B&D wrote:

Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully,
the
transport selected was capable of resisting jitter and the overall
design
was made to prevent digital timing errors.

You believe doing those things right cost $4.5K more?

The transports used in the $$$ players are just the same as those
used
in players that cost an order of magnitude less. (In some cases
grossly
inferior transports were used, like the belt-driven ones.) The DAC
chips
used are often the same or even older than the ones used in the
mass-manufactured players. Not that you are likely to hear the
differences resulting from different DAC's used.

Then there's the power supply. I can understand why a robust power
supply is essential to a good amp, but I have a CD player that runs on
two AA batteries. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but if you can run
a player *at all* on that kind of juice, it's highly unlikely that you
need your own generating station to get distortion-free sound out of a
CD player.

bob

It's not the amount of power, it's how clean the power is. Especially noise
can come from inferior designs and components. Another consideration would
be crosstalk, especially when it's not linear over frequency. The best
design would use separate supplies for each audio channel, separate supplies
for analog and digital stages, high grade components and well designed
filters for each stage of the audio processing. If it would make an audible
difference is probably subject for another discussion.

On 1/12/05 7:51 PM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

Instead of talking in theory - can you give me a concrete example of a $5k
player that sounds "as good" as a $500 one?

What's wrong with talking in theory? [snip]

Because there is nothing very concrete to talk about - all the "examples"
are theoretical constructs, and everyone spends all of their time tiling at
windmills and knocking down strawmen.

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

Hasenpfeffer wrote:
wrote in message ...
Chung wrote:
B&D wrote:

Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully,
the
transport selected was capable of resisting jitter and the overall
design
was made to prevent digital timing errors.

You believe doing those things right cost $4.5K more?

The transports used in the $$$ players are just the same as those
used
in players that cost an order of magnitude less. (In some cases
grossly
inferior transports were used, like the belt-driven ones.) The DAC
chips
used are often the same or even older than the ones used in the
mass-manufactured players. Not that you are likely to hear the
differences resulting from different DAC's used.

Then there's the power supply. I can understand why a robust power
supply is essential to a good amp, but I have a CD player that runs on
two AA batteries. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but if you can run
a player *at all* on that kind of juice, it's highly unlikely that you
need your own generating station to get distortion-free sound out of a
CD player.

bob

It's not the amount of power, it's how clean the power is.

But it is the amount of power. It is much easier filtering power supply
noise if the current requirements are low. It is much harder providing a
clean power supply that delivers a large amount of current.

It is actually quite straightforward to design a clean supply for the CD
player, since the power requirements are so modest.

Especially noise
can come from inferior designs and components. Another consideration would
be crosstalk, especially when it's not linear over frequency. The best
design would use separate supplies for each audio channel, separate supplies
for analog and digital stages, high grade components and well designed
filters for each stage of the audio processing. If it would make an audible
difference is probably subject for another discussion.

In the modern players, more and more is done in the digital domain. The
analog tasks left are easily implemented, at low cost.

Now, looking at the infamous Wavac tubed amp's measurements, one has to
wonder whether the audiophile really can discriminate excellent supply
regulation from a very poor one.

The mistake is not using the CD Player's DAC and Analog stages

As I mentioned, a second bacth of comparisons used analog connection to
verify that the different DACs used in different CD players would not
make a difference. In those tests, no audible differences occured from
player to player. On four or five occasions, we would tell the "blind"
person doing the listening tests that we were switching from player A
to player B, while in fact we would simply wait for 35-40 seconds and
then re-start player A. On 2 or 3 occasions, the listener claimed to
hear a solid difference between the cheaper player A and more expensive
player B, however WE HAD NEVER SWITCHED PLAYERS. This tells me that my
assumptions are correct.

I like Klipsch's top-spec RF-7 towers quite a bit, enough to have
bought a pair, however I also love the much more expensive equipment
from Dynaudio and I'm even a bit partial to a few other speakers. Using
the Klipsch RF-7s should not have effected our sound tests.

The analog sections and power supply design
often "make or break" the resulting sound.

I did secondary comparisons with analog outputs, which I have posted
about here. The power supply claims are silly, IMO, because none of the
units I've listened to, starting at $125 or so, had power supplies
introducing enough distortion to be audible. People will sit back and
claim that having more "robust" power supplies in isolated mounting
points, etc... will make cleaner sound. I'm sorry to break it to those
people that none of this units produce distortion that the human ear
could detect. Secondly, I found the same with DACs. The Denon AVR-5803
is a better reciver than my 2803 is, but any differences in sound
quality between mine and the 5803 are because of the 5803s more
powerful amps. The DACs in these units cannot make any audible
difference. Period.

Hasenpfeffer wrote:

The transports used in the $$$ players are just the same as those
used
in players that cost an order of magnitude less. (In some cases
grossly
inferior transports were used, like the belt-driven ones.) The DAC
chips
used are often the same or even older than the ones used in the
mass-manufactured players. Not that you are likely to hear the
differences resulting from different DAC's used.

Then there's the power supply. I can understand why a robust power
supply is essential to a good amp, but I have a CD player that runs
on two AA batteries. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but if you
can run a player *at all* on that kind of juice, it's highly
unlikely that you need your own generating station to get
distortion-free sound out of a CD player.

bob

It's not the amount of power, it's how clean the power is. Especially
noise can come from inferior designs and components. Another
consideration would be crosstalk, especially when it's not linear
over frequency. The best design would use separate supplies for each
audio channel, separate supplies for analog and digital stages, high
grade components and well designed filters for each stage of the
audio processing. If it would make an audible difference is probably
subject for another discussion.

If you analyze a "high-end" player for 5000$, you will find exactly the same
transport, ICs and even PCBs inside of a 500$ or 100$ player. The money is
spend on the enclosure with thick machined front plates, knobs etc. All
those components do not have any impact on the sound, but please the eye
only. It looks like a Ferrari with a regular Taurus engine inside, not worth
the investment, exept if you need the gear to impress the friends. And it
won't even do that if your friends are engineers. :-((
Often the regular Sony sounds even better, because the guys know their
subject unlike some high-end "designers", that are not even engineers. I
have seen more design flaws in expensive gear than in cheap one.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

B&D wrote:
On 1/11/05 7:47 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

All of them were connected to a Denon A/V
reciever via optical connection

The mistake is not using the CD Player's DAC and Analog stages - if you use
the optical output, you are only hearing the ability DAC in your receiver --
it is no wonder you didn't hear any difference.

So at least we all agree that as transports, those players probably
sound the same, regardless of price differences? In other words, your
contention that the "digital transports are big adders to the final
product" really does not hold true in the context of the very expensive
CD players.

It seems like what the designers of expensive CD players should have
done is simply put an inexpensive mass-produced CD player inside as a
transport. That should save them a bundle of money and design effort, no?


Klipsch is a great company, but there are speakers that are much better
transducers out there, though credit to Klipsch, they all cost more $$$.


There is always that claim: if you don't hear the difference, your
equipment is not resolving enough...

B&D wrote:

On 1/10/05 8:52 PM, in article , "Tat Chan"
wrote:

B&D wrote:



If you look at a Benchmark DAC1 and put it up against an $20 Apex player, or
even an iPod, you will find that it is leaps an bounds better at extracting
detail and presenting it in a manner that is accurate and revealing of flaws
in the recording. That is, in essence, what most Audiophiles are after -
though many get caught up in gear that may not live up to that standard for
a lot of money.

"Accurate and revealing of flaws in the recording". I am afraid that
only true believers in high-fidelity would like that kind of sound.

If you can't hear the flaws in a recording, you can't hear how good it
sounds when they get the recording right. And iPod does a great deal to
whitewash the details - and it sounds great with bad recordings. Good to
have one around if you have some CD's rendered unlistenable due to the awful
mastering.

If you don't want the unvarnished truth of the recording - I can't say you
are very much interested in high end. Even if you were to ask 'phile and
TAS editors (minor demons on this NG) their opinion - would they rather have
accurate and revealing or warm and mushy and inaccurate - they would
probably say that accuracy was first.

That certainly is not true among the more subjectivist audiophile
posters on this newsgroup. They do not value objective accuracy much.
They want "accuracy" to their "memories of live music", whatever that
means. I don't think that is the same as accuracy to the recording at all.

You remember that Wavac amp review, right?

B&D wrote:
On 1/12/05 7:51 PM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

Instead of talking in theory - can you give me a concrete example of a $5k
player that sounds "as good" as a $500 one?

What's wrong with talking in theory? [snip]

Because there is nothing very concrete to talk about - all the "examples"
are theoretical constructs, and everyone spends all of their time tiling at
windmills and knocking down strawmen.

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

If you had not snipped the rest of my response, you would have noted
that I was not referring to any $5K player in general. And we were all
trying to answer the question whether the $5K players will sound better
than the $500 ones.

But if you insist on me supplying an example of a $5K player that sounds
very good, I would give you this: the Sony SCD-1. I listened to it
carefully when it first came out (around 1999, I believe), and the price
back then was about $5K, list. While I really admired the industrial
design of the product, listening to CD's alone I could not tell it apart
from another Sony ES player that sold for less than $1K at that time. I
have also later compared that Sony ES player against newer DVD player
that cost less than $500, and I could not tell the units apart.

And there are plenty to talk about without giving concrete examples. For
instance, you know that there will be serious consequences without the
anti-alias filters, based on theory.

wrote in message ...
The analog sections and power supply design
often "make or break" the resulting sound.

I did secondary comparisons with analog outputs, which I have posted
about here. The power supply claims are silly, IMO, because none of the
units I've listened to, starting at $125 or so, had power supplies
introducing enough distortion to be audible. People will sit back and
claim that having more "robust" power supplies in isolated mounting
points, etc... will make cleaner sound. I'm sorry to break it to those
people that none of this units produce distortion that the human ear
could detect. Secondly, I found the same with DACs. The Denon AVR-5803
is a better reciver than my 2803 is, but any differences in sound
quality between mine and the 5803 are because of the 5803s more
powerful amps. The DACs in these units cannot make any audible
difference. Period.

I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass. It is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound and
mid-fi.

On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D wrote:

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

Try the Meridian 800 series. Many would regard it as sheer engineering
overkill, but it *is* designed to be utterly linear, without any 'high
end' trickery to make it sound 'better' than mainstream units.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 14 Jan 2005 01:17:30 GMT, Chung wrote:

It seems like what the designers of expensive CD players should have
done is simply put an inexpensive mass-produced CD player inside as a
transport. That should save them a bundle of money and design effort, no?

That *is* what most of them do. Inside the $10,000 Mark Levinson
'Reference' transport, you'll find exactly the same $50 Philips
transport mech and electronics package that goes in the 'CD jukebox'
in your local bar.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

B&D wrote:

On 1/9/05 3:41 PM, in article , "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

Analog's a different ballgame. No turntable or tape deck, at any price,
can deliver ruler-flat frequency response and inaudible levels of
distortion to a preamp. So naturally it's possible (make that likely)
that any two will sound different.

Yeah, many more variables here requiring top-flight mechanical and materials
engineering as well as electrical performance. But once again, analog
design and build quality has much to do with final results...phono headamps
and preamps, tape recorder output stages, etc.

Also keep in mind the power supply and digital transport are big adders to
the final product.

If a $20 CDP were truly SOTA, then there would be no need for outboard DAC's
like the Benchmark DAC-1 which being a piece of pro gear for mastering
music, has to be more accurate than an Apex $20 portable in order to justify
its $900 price tag to the professionals!

You are making a fundamental mistake in simple logic here. First, I
have followed this thread and no one here has claimed that a $20 CDP
was "SOTA". Secondly, while the Benchmark DAC-1 is a fantastic
product, you imply that paying more money for a CDP will get you
Benchmark DAC-1 quality and I highly doubt that is the case! If I am
wrong, please tell me which units include the Benchmark DAC-1 in their
electronics.
More importantly, the responses to you here have been that the high
end CDPs in the ~$5000 range were not _audibly_ different than a good
quality ~$500 (not $20) player.
Furthermore I am confident that no one, including you, can actually
hear the difference in a good quality DAC and specs like the THD+N =
-106 dB (0.0005%) that the Benchmark DAC-1 provides! Of course specs
like this are highly desirable, even necessary, in a recording
environment where added distortions of any kind should be minimized.
Surely you do not imply that this kind of accuracy is necessary or
even audible in a home CDP? If so, then please provide evidence that
you or ANYONE can hear this difference.

Richard

Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message ...

The analog sections and power supply design
often "make or break" the resulting sound.

I did secondary comparisons with analog outputs, which I have posted
about here. The power supply claims are silly, IMO, because none of the
units I've listened to, starting at $125 or so, had power supplies
introducing enough distortion to be audible. People will sit back and
claim that having more "robust" power supplies in isolated mounting
points, etc... will make cleaner sound. I'm sorry to break it to those
people that none of this units produce distortion that the human ear
could detect. Secondly, I found the same with DACs. The Denon AVR-5803
is a better reciver than my 2803 is, but any differences in sound
quality between mine and the 5803 are because of the 5803s more
powerful amps. The DACs in these units cannot make any audible
difference. Period.


I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass. It is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound and
mid-fi.


So if I take my walmart CD player, rip out the AC power supply an run
the player off of batteries, that would or should increase its sonic
capability significantly?

CD

I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made
up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct
bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass.
It is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound
and
mid-fi.

It's not me you're arguing with as much as it is the blind testing I've
been involved in. People are very "mental" about what they hear, or
what they *think* they hear. When you know you're comparing a $5,000 CD
player to a $125 player, and you're watching a sales person switch
between the two, it's very easy to "hear" a difference. When you're
forced to sit away from the players and can no longer see which one is
being played, your ability to "hear" those differences simply goes
away. I have very sensitive hearing, and enjoy high-end gear, I'm also
very picky about my sound. And if I could find any solid evidence that
a $5,000 player truly was better than a $125 player, I'd pay the $5k.
But the difference simply isn;t there OR it's not a difference that
your ears can pick up. You're partially fighting medical-science here,
there are simply things that the human ear CANNOT detect. If my dogs
ever learn to speak, I'll ask them if THEY heard a difference. =)

More importantly, the responses to you here have been that the high
end CDPs in the ~$5000 range were not _audibly_ different than a good
quality ~$500 (not $20) player.

This was/is certainly my feeling, and it has been since I started the
thread. I wasn't expecting or attempting to start an argument here, I
simply wanted to see how many "high end audio guys" were actually
buying into the idea of more money = *audible* increases in sound
quality. I'm constantly frustrated by reviewers who insist that when
going from CD player to CD player or from DAC/amp to DAC/amp they can
hear a difference in sound - that one is "warmer" that one is
"cleaner", etc...My own blind testing with self proclaimed "audiphiles"
has proven my inclination to be right...that it's all marketing jazz
and little more.

"Codifus" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

wrote in message
...

The analog sections and power supply design
often "make or break" the resulting sound.

I did secondary comparisons with analog outputs, which I have posted
about here. The power supply claims are silly, IMO, because none of the
units I've listened to, starting at $125 or so, had power supplies
introducing enough distortion to be audible. People will sit back and
claim that having more "robust" power supplies in isolated mounting
points, etc... will make cleaner sound. I'm sorry to break it to those
people that none of this units produce distortion that the human ear
could detect. Secondly, I found the same with DACs. The Denon AVR-5803
is a better reciver than my 2803 is, but any differences in sound
quality between mine and the 5803 are because of the 5803s more
powerful amps. The DACs in these units cannot make any audible
difference. Period.


I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made
up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct
bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass.
It is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound
and
mid-fi.


So if I take my walmart CD player, rip out the AC power supply an run
the player off of batteries, that would or should increase its sonic
capability significantly?

Not necessarily. You also have to have enough current on instantaneous tap.
One of the knocks on battery powered gear is that sometimes they seem to be
slightly anemic in the dynamics department.

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...
The analog sections and power supply design
often "make or break" the resulting sound.

I did secondary comparisons with analog outputs, which I have posted
about here. The power supply claims are silly, IMO, because none of the
units I've listened to, starting at $125 or so, had power supplies
introducing enough distortion to be audible. People will sit back and
claim that having more "robust" power supplies in isolated mounting
points, etc... will make cleaner sound. I'm sorry to break it to those
people that none of this units produce distortion that the human ear
could detect. Secondly, I found the same with DACs. The Denon AVR-5803
is a better reciver than my 2803 is, but any differences in sound
quality between mine and the 5803 are because of the 5803s more
powerful amps. The DACs in these units cannot make any audible
difference. Period.

I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass. It is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound and
mid-fi.



Sure, the power supply has a bearing; without it the CD player does not
work . But you are not going to find sonic differences between $5K and
$500 or less players due to power supply; all the mass manufacturer's CD
players I have read reviews on have no trouble keeping line spurs out of
the signal.

On the other hand, maybe there is something in what you said. There may
be boutique players with really poor supply regulations. The high-end
designers are fully capable of screwing up a power supply design!

Oh, and how did you figure out that the power supply in a CD player
affects how it presents "upper bass and midrange"? I would have guessed
that the results of a poor supply would have been hum and increased
jitter. Or worse high frequency response.

On 1/14/05 3:28 PM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D wrote:

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

Try the Meridian 800 series. Many would regard it as sheer engineering
overkill, but it *is* designed to be utterly linear, without any 'high
end' trickery to make it sound 'better' than mainstream units.

OK, that is your $5000 player. What about the $500 one?

On 1/14/05 3:29 PM, in article , "Richard"
wrote:

More importantly, the responses to you here have been that the high
end CDPs in the ~$5000 range were not _audibly_ different than a good
quality ~$500 (not $20) player.

However if a $20 CDP sounds worse than a Benchmark for $900, then it
logically follows that there is possible differentiation between players and
not everything is SOTA which was my point.

I would go further and say a "$500 CDP" that being unspecified and
unidentified could very well be far worse than a "$5000 CDP." Since we are
talking hypothetically.

On 1/13/05 8:17 PM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

If you don't want the unvarnished truth of the recording - I can't say you
are very much interested in high end. Even if you were to ask 'phile and
TAS editors (minor demons on this NG) their opinion - would they rather have
accurate and revealing or warm and mushy and inaccurate - they would
probably say that accuracy was first.

That certainly is not true among the more subjectivist audiophile
posters on this newsgroup. They do not value objective accuracy much.
They want "accuracy" to their "memories of live music", whatever that
means. I don't think that is the same as accuracy to the recording at all.

Given the way the brain works - that is not always a bad metric, but I agree
that it can be very elusive to pin down.

But, OTOH it also difficult to pi9n down what a "$500 CDP" might be and what
a "$5000 CDP" since some are very well engineered and some not so well....



You remember that Wavac amp review, right?

Sure I do - the particular reviewer that performed the review was amazed
that an amp that measured so poorly sounded as good as it did.

On 1/13/05 8:15 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

I like Klipsch's top-spec RF-7 towers quite a bit, enough to have
bought a pair, however I also love the much more expensive equipment
from Dynaudio and I'm even a bit partial to a few other speakers. Using
the Klipsch RF-7s should not have effected our sound tests.

Dunno - I have a pair of Klipsch [albeit low end $200/pr] and they seem
rather bright and congested in the mid range. They really do sound good for
the money, though.

On 14 Jan 2005 20:25:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

wrote in message ...
The analog sections and power supply design
often "make or break" the resulting sound.

I did secondary comparisons with analog outputs, which I have posted
about here. The power supply claims are silly, IMO, because none of the
units I've listened to, starting at $125 or so, had power supplies
introducing enough distortion to be audible. People will sit back and
claim that having more "robust" power supplies in isolated mounting
points, etc... will make cleaner sound. I'm sorry to break it to those
people that none of this units produce distortion that the human ear
could detect. Secondly, I found the same with DACs. The Denon AVR-5803
is a better reciver than my 2803 is, but any differences in sound
quality between mine and the 5803 are because of the 5803s more
powerful amps. The DACs in these units cannot make any audible
difference. Period.

I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass. It is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound and
mid-fi.

OTOH, since you have *never* presented any reliable and repeatable
evidence that you can actually hear these claimed 'differences',
perhaps you should limit youreself to suggesting that such things
*may* cause a slight *theoretical* improvement.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote in message ...
I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made
up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct
bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass.
It is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound
and
mid-fi.

It's not me you're arguing with as much as it is the blind testing I've
been involved in. People are very "mental" about what they hear, or
what they *think* they hear. When you know you're comparing a $5,000 CD
player to a $125 player, and you're watching a sales person switch
between the two, it's very easy to "hear" a difference. When you're
forced to sit away from the players and can no longer see which one is
being played, your ability to "hear" those differences simply goes
away. I have very sensitive hearing, and enjoy high-end gear, I'm also
very picky about my sound. And if I could find any solid evidence that
a $5,000 player truly was better than a $125 player, I'd pay the $5k.
But the difference simply isn;t there OR it's not a difference that
your ears can pick up. You're partially fighting medical-science here,
there are simply things that the human ear CANNOT detect. If my dogs
ever learn to speak, I'll ask them if THEY heard a difference. =)

My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the arguments
here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
"disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and others
will continue to trust our basic instincts.

In article ,
" wrote:

More importantly, the responses to you here have been that the high
end CDPs in the ~$5000 range were not _audibly_ different than a good
quality ~$500 (not $20) player.

This was/is certainly my feeling, and it has been since I started the
thread. I wasn't expecting or attempting to start an argument here, I
simply wanted to see how many "high end audio guys" were actually
buying into the idea of more money = *audible* increases in sound
quality. I'm constantly frustrated by reviewers who insist that when
going from CD player to CD player or from DAC/amp to DAC/amp they can
hear a difference in sound - that one is "warmer" that one is
"cleaner", etc...My own blind testing with self proclaimed "audiphiles"
has proven my inclination to be right...that it's all marketing jazz
and little more.

You didn't expect start an argument, but you wanted to see if anyone
thinks there's a difference so you can tell them they're wrong?

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?

Stephen

On 15 Jan 2005 16:46:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the arguments
here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
"disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and others
will continue to trust our basic instincts.

Several years ago I conducted a test which the participants believed
to be sighted. They all heard the differences quite distinctly every
time, and had no problem at all identifying the two components under
test.

The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in fact
the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
throughout the test.

So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that there
were no differences to hear.

This is why blind testing really works, and why the results it gives
can be trusted.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

B&D wrote:
On 1/14/05 3:29 PM, in article , "Richard"
wrote:

More importantly, the responses to you here have been that the high
end CDPs in the ~$5000 range were not _audibly_ different than a good
quality ~$500 (not $20) player.

However if a $20 CDP sounds worse than a Benchmark for $900, then it
logically follows that there is possible differentiation between players and
not everything is SOTA which was my point.

I would go further and say a "$500 CDP" that being unspecified and
unidentified could very well be far worse than a "$5000 CDP." Since we are
talking hypothetically.

I guess the concept of diminishing return does not work for you. Your
logic fails because there is a minimum cost to doing things right, like
when it comes to making a CD player with no errors detectible through
normal listening. We have been arguing that the minimum price for such
players is below $500, and no one has said that the price is $20 yet. We
are not saying that the $20 will sound as good as a $500 player, because
below a certain price point, some corners have to be cut that might
affect sound.

On the other hand, going above $500 rarely will buy you anything
improvement in sound. You might get some different sounding players, but
chances are they are less accurate.

B&D wrote:
On 1/13/05 8:17 PM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

If you don't want the unvarnished truth of the recording - I can't say you
are very much interested in high end. Even if you were to ask 'phile and
TAS editors (minor demons on this NG) their opinion - would they rather have
accurate and revealing or warm and mushy and inaccurate - they would
probably say that accuracy was first.

That certainly is not true among the more subjectivist audiophile
posters on this newsgroup. They do not value objective accuracy much.
They want "accuracy" to their "memories of live music", whatever that
means. I don't think that is the same as accuracy to the recording at all.

Given the way the brain works - that is not always a bad metric,

Given the way the brain works, that is a terrible metric!

Do you believe that people have the same memory of live music,
regardless of the kind of music, where they sat, or how long ago they
had listened to live music? What about people who have never been at a
recording studio, how are they to know what a studio recording should
sound? What does accuracy mean for different people then? How does the
designer design to that elusive, highly personal, accuracy of memory?

Do you want to design a circuit with no objectively measureable specs?

but I agree
that it can be very elusive to pin down.

But, OTOH it also difficult to pi9n down what a "$500 CDP" might be and what
a "$5000 CDP" since some are very well engineered and some not so well....


But that is very different than what you said previously, that $5000
will *necessarily* buy you a better player, no?

Some of us are saying that the mass-manufactured players such as those
from Sony selling for less than $500 are more likely to be consistently
good in terms of accuracy.



You remember that Wavac amp review, right?

Sure I do - the particular reviewer that performed the review was amazed
that an amp that measured so poorly sounded as good as it did.

Actually there were two reviewers. I am not sure if the one (Mr.
Atkinson) who made the measurements ever said that the unit sounded
good. And the one who wrote the purple prose appeared to not worry about
measurements at all.

The point is that inaccuracy, in a non-blind listening session where the
price-tag is known, might appear as excellent sounding for some golden-ears.

wrote:
More importantly, the responses to you here have been that the high
end CDPs in the ~$5000 range were not _audibly_ different than a good
quality ~$500 (not $20) player.

This was/is certainly my feeling, and it has been since I started the
thread. I wasn't expecting or attempting to start an argument here, I
simply wanted to see how many "high end audio guys" were actually
buying into the idea of more money = *audible* increases in sound
quality.

Actually, lots of them, just not here. Other discussion sites, which
get a lot more traffic than this one (audiogon, audioasylum) are
dominated by people who believe that literally everything makes an
audible difference (and that they are special because they can hear
these differences). Those sites also exercise censorship to keep down
opposing viewpoints.

After all, if there weren't consumers willing to believe that $5,000 CD
players are better, there would be no $5,000 CD players.

I'm constantly frustrated by reviewers who insist that when
going from CD player to CD player or from DAC/amp to DAC/amp they can
hear a difference in sound - that one is "warmer" that one is
"cleaner", etc...

Ah, but that's what most people who buy those magazines want to read.
Atkinson and Pearson would starve if they tried to satisfy the likes of
you!

bob

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?

And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
difference between them? Happens all the time.

bob

Over the years I have wasted a lot of money. I have two Marantz CD
players - a 63SE and a 67SE. I added a MSB link D/A converter with a
special power supply, a DIP jitter buster and use Kimber PBJ cables. It
doesn't matter which I listen to or whether or not I go through the
outboard converter. Everything sounds the same. The cables don't make
any difference either.


---MIKE---

I have two pairs, a pair of $1,200 Synergy towers with built in subs
and a set of Reference Series RF-7s. Both are "crisp" but not painfully
bright, which is where I find the Infinity product to be, and neither
are congested anywhere in the line. In fact, I quite like their sound,
they have a nicely defined high end sound with solid mids. Mated with a
powerful amp and a good sub, I've found very little else, at least at
that price point, that sounds as good. But I am partial to Dynaudio's
towers, which start at about $1,500 a pair and move up to almost $80k a
pair.

You didn't expect start an argument, but you wanted to see if anyone
thinks there's a difference so you can tell them they're wrong?


Umm...no. I wanted to see if anyone could actually deny the reality of
the situation and come up with any evidence to support their claims.
The "I thought I heard it, so it's there" rhetoric is faulty.

think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?

I wouldn't say that you're "wrong", I'd say that you're hearing things
the way you want to hear them, and not the way they actually ARE.

On 12 Jan 2005 00:47:09 GMT, "
wrote:

Take a $500 NAD C542 against a Arcam CD192 ($1700) - you will hear a
definite improvement more detail, better high end and low end. Will be
about 20% or so better, but better overall none the less.

I'm sorry, but my own tests have proven this notion to be false. I
compared CD players from a broad spectrum of price points and by
various manufacturers. All of them were connected to a Denon A/V
reciever via optical connection and the Denon was powering Klipsch
Reference Series speakers. I was unable to detect ANY difference in
sonic quality between the units. Similar tests have been done elsewhere
to the same effect.

But this is an irrelevant comparison, because you are only comparing
the *transports* in these players, not the whole player. It is in fact
likely that if you take a dozen CD players ranging from $100 to
$10,000, they will all use one of the same two transport mechs
(Philips or Sony), and will all sound identical. This ain't rocket
science!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 15 Jan 2005 16:17:41 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 1/14/05 3:28 PM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D wrote:

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

Try the Meridian 800 series. Many would regard it as sheer engineering
overkill, but it *is* designed to be utterly linear, without any 'high
end' trickery to make it sound 'better' than mainstream units.

OK, that is your $5000 player.

More like $10,000, but whatever.

What about the $500 one?

Why mess about with a mere CD player at that price? Go for the Pioneer
'universal' DV-565, and get great sound from almost any variety of
silver disc - plus all the films you can watch! If you insist on a
'pure' CD player, then the Arcam CD-73 is probably as good as it gets
technically.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 12 Jan 2005 00:44:31 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 1/10/05 8:25 PM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully, the
transport selected was capable of resisting jitter

The lowest jitter transport assembly available *at any price* is the
basic Sony model. That's why Arcam and others use it.

Sure - and does Sony offer more than 1 transport to the OEM's?

I believe they have two basic transport mechs, I don't know if both
are sold to OEMs.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 15 Jan 2005 16:18:09 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 1/14/05 3:29 PM, in article , "Richard"
wrote:

More importantly, the responses to you here have been that the high
end CDPs in the ~$5000 range were not _audibly_ different than a good
quality ~$500 (not $20) player.

However if a $20 CDP sounds worse than a Benchmark for $900, then it
logically follows that there is possible differentiation between players and
not everything is SOTA which was my point.

You first have to show that the $20 player does in fact sound worse
than the Benchmark.

I would go further and say a "$500 CDP" that being unspecified and
unidentified could very well be far worse than a "$5000 CDP." Since we are
talking hypothetically.

I would say that it's *much* more likely that the $5,000 player will
have poor performance!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering