Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 $$$ players are just the same as those used in players that cost an order of magnitude less. (In some cases grossly inferior transports were used, like the belt-driven ones.) The DAC chips used are often the same or even older than the ones used in the mass-manufactured players. Not that you are likely to hear the differences resulting from different DAC's used. Then there's the power supply. I can understand why a robust power supply is essential to a good amp, but I have a CD player that runs on two AA batteries. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but if you can run a player *at all* on that kind of juice, it's highly unlikely that you need your own generating station to get distortion-free sound out of a CD player. bob It's not the amount of power, it's how clean the power is. Especially noise can come from inferior designs and components. Another consideration would be crosstalk, especially when it's not linear over frequency. The best design would use separate supplies for each audio channel, separate supplies for analog and digital stages, high grade components and well designed filters for each stage of the audio processing. If it would make an audible difference is probably subject for another discussion. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Hasenpfeffer wrote:
wrote in message ... Chung wrote: B&D wrote: Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully, the transport selected was capable of resisting jitter and the overall design was made to prevent digital timing errors. You believe doing those things right cost $4.5K more? The transports used in the $$$ 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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
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. =) |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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--- |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
DNC Schedule of Events | Pro Audio |