Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , And, if it measures different, it can sound different. That would appear to be an oversimplification. It lacks the idea that quanitification of the size of the difference is important. As stated, every measurable difference has to cause an audible difference. This is now known to be not true. The correct statement is: If it measures sufficiently different, then it may sound different. Would you care to explain the difference between my statement that it "can sound different" and your statement that it "may sound different" ? Other than the formal grammar, your statement and mine are saying the same thing. Most DACs do measure differently. Actually our test equipment is so sensitive that everything meausres differently, even the different channels of multichannel devices. Yes, and....? These measurement differences are not so much things like frequency response and distortion + noise (which tend to be very low, and usually below the threshold of hearing. but are things like the undithered sinewave waveform shape, This is a false claim on several grounds. (1) A proper digital signal is always dithered. (2) In practice all commercial and custom recordings are dithered. (3) Presuming a recording system with 16 bits and a real world recording environment, the recording would be dithered even if someone was stupid enough to attempt to make it without dither. Agreed. But Atkinson in Stereophile measures DAC sine wave waveform shape on undithered test signals and they do show great differences between DACs. Cheap ones don't look very good, and very good ones look more like pure sine waves. Since this is an area where DACs differ between makes and models, I included it. I don't pretend to know how much such wave shapes affect real-world DAC performance and I doubt seriously if even Atkinson knows. jitter spectrum, Jitter is the boogey man of digital audio for people who are unfamiliar with the issues related to its audibiility. A great deal of misleading information about it has been published, particular in audiophile and recording engineer contexts. In fact there are no known instances of jitter being reliably audible when equipment with minimal performance is being used. There have been attempts to do this, but they came up null. Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. Your anecdotal evidence that says jitter is an audiophile red herring has no more weight than others' anecdotal evidence that says that it is important. impulse response, Only poorly informed people would suggest that impulse response is unrelated to frequency and phase response, so this is another audiophile boogey man. Again, Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. Your anecdotal evidence that says impulse response is an audiophile red herring has no more weight than others' anecdotal evidence that says that it is important. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , And, if it measures different, it can sound different. That would appear to be an oversimplification. It lacks the idea that quanitification of the size of the difference is important. As stated, every measurable difference has to cause an audible difference. This is now known to be not true. The correct statement is: If it measures sufficiently different, then it may sound different. Sorry, I don't understand the difference. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: And, if it measures different, it can sound different. Most DACs do measure differently. These measurement differences are not so much things like frequency response and distortion + noise (which tend to be very low, and usually below the threshold of hearing. but are things like the undithered sinewave waveform shape, jitter spectrum, impulse response, etc. First, let's clear up a misconception. An imperfection in a DAC will be manifested as linear distortion, nonlinear distortion, or noise. Jitter is nonlinear, and will cause IMD. Different impulse responses are probably due to phase shifts. An imperfect undithered sinewave waveform shape could be due to anything, but is probably just noise. everything you say is correct. The only questions is how much of these linear and nonlinear distortions or this noise is above the threshold of hearing? Obviously some of it is, or all DACs from a $50 Chinese DAC box bought on E-Bay would perform exactly like a $14,000 DAC box from MSB. Hint: they don't. Why is the undithered sine wave interesting, anyway? It can't happen in any recording. I suppose it makes an interesting-looking picture. I don't know. Ask John Atkinson of Stereophile. They are part of the suite of tests he uses to test DACs and they do show a degree of noise modulation and that degree does differ with different DAC models. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
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. 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. 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). |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Certain things in the world of physics and electronics, for instance, tell me that wire can have no sound. I've enough experience testing cables in the aerospace industry to know how different frequencies are affected by such things as resistance, capacitance and inductance, and I know that wire can have no sound because none of those three criteria as found in competently made audio cables can have any effect at audio frequencies (unless they are added to the cable by the manufacturer, then, of course, we no longer have a conductor, we have a fixed filter). So I'm never surprised when DBTs show no difference between cables. But here's the rub. Expecting there to be no difference is just as much of a bias as is expecting there to be an audible difference. So double blind and ABX tests wouldn't be bias free for such a participant. All cables sound alike is the expectation so no matter if the cables sounded different or not, the biased listener is not going to hear it. Perhaps, but I don't have to hear differences between components myself to be a believer: I just have to know that, in tests, someone can hear the difference. These tests have to be sensitive and repeatable, that's all. So, all you need is someone with good hearing who does believe. Besides, the listener doesn't need to know what is being compared. Andrew. That's true, but I have never been privy to a DBT or ABX test where the participants didn't know what they were testing: "two amplifiers", "two sets of speaker cables" , "Two DACs". They might or might not know WHICH two (brand and models) of anything they are listening to, however. My point was simply that there can be biases AGAINST some things sounding different as well as biases in favor of the proposition. While DBT and ABX will remove the bias in tests where the participants DO believe, for instance that cables all sound different , but it won't remove the bias from people who DON'T believe it - unless, of course, as you pointed out, they don't know at all what they are listening to. Then the test would be free of that type of bias. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , "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. (2) Do one or more time synched, level matched, bias controlled listening test. 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. It's too bad that double-blind or ABX tests are so difficult to arrange. Often proper DBTs are every easy to arrange. A DBT comparing DACs would be an example of one of the easier tests to set up. I disagree. You would have to gather a group of listeners, you would have to have some way of switching between samples where the operator could not not be seen by the listeners, and vice versa (to eliminate the possibility of body language cues being inadvertently given to the listeners by the operator), and you would have to make sure that the outputs of both DUTs were equal to within a fraction of a dB. I would say that it is a less than casual or convenient undertaking. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On 11/21/2012 1:35 AM, Dave C wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... On 11/18/2012 2:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: snip **You'd think. I sure did. Recently, I enlarged my workshop to include a listening room, using high quality speakers and amplification. For some time I've been using a Harman Kardon HD970 CD player as my main source. It is an exceptionally good player, which also happens to be quite versatile. A few weeks back a client sent a Marantz CD80 in for service and modification. After a lens clean and lube I put it in my system for a quick listen. WOW! A 23 year old player comprehensively beat my relatively recently manufactured HK player. The difference was not measurable that I could ascertain. Yet the sonic difference was certainly noticable (FR, THD, et al were all beyond the limits of audibility). I replaced the ancient 5534 OP amps with AD825 chips. No measurable improvement. Sound-wise, I couldn't reliably hear any difference either. The client claimed that there was a difference and he was happy. Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno. The HK uses completely different DACs to the Marantz and a discrete transistor output stage. I certainly did not expect the Marantz to provide a superior sound to the HK. It's 23 years old! I expected that, at best, there would be no audible difference. At worst, I certainly expceted the HK to beat the Marantz. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au For reasons of sanity I have stopped asking too many questions about the why. For years I have been an advocate of the if you can really hear it you can measure it camp - conditioning from 30 odd years in engineering.. **I am firmly in that camp. It is entirely possible that not enough is being measured to quantify everything we hear. However the blatant differences in things like CD players suggest either an equally blatant disregard for the basics, or a deliberate "sound" design (sic). **Absolutely. In fact, I have found exactly that with many pieces of audio equipment. Including CD players. I only listen now - not interested in the spec sheets, I can hear anything I need to and once I've chosen one, get on with enjoying the music. Just have to occasionally beat into submission the little voice that starts to say "but they should sound the same!!" Dave **Oh yeah. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: And, if it measures different, it can sound different. Most DACs do measure differently. These measurement differences are not so much things like frequency response and distortion + noise (which tend to be very low, and usually below the threshold of hearing. but are things like the undithered sinewave waveform shape, jitter spectrum, impulse response, etc. First, let's clear up a misconception. An imperfection in a DAC will be manifested as linear distortion, nonlinear distortion, or noise. Jitter is nonlinear, and will cause IMD. Different impulse responses are probably due to phase shifts. An imperfect undithered sinewave waveform shape could be due to anything, but is probably just noise. everything you say is correct. The only questions is how much of these linear and nonlinear distortions or this noise is above the threshold of hearing? Well, you can see the amplitudes of these on a spectrum analyzer. The absolute thresholds of hearing at any frequency are in Zwicker and Fastl, as is information about the effects of masking on those thresholds. Obviously some of it is, or all DACs from a $50 Chinese DAC box bought on E-Bay would perform exactly like a $14,000 DAC box from MSB. Not necessarily: it's quite possible that the $50 Chinese DAC box has some nasty nonlinearites due to very cheap design. Hint: they don't. Why is the undithered sine wave interesting, anyway? It can't happen in any recording. I suppose it makes an interesting-looking picture. I don't know. Ask John Atkinson of Stereophile. They are part of the suite of tests he uses to test DACs and they do show a degree of noise modulation and that degree does differ with different DAC models. I know, but I suspect that the only reason to print those is to show something that is measurably different. Andrew. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , It's too bad that double-blind or ABX tests are so difficult to arrange. Often proper DBTs are every easy to arrange. A DBT comparing DACs would be an example of one of the easier tests to set up. I disagree. To coin a phrase "Saying it is so doesn't make it so". There's a big well known difference between us - I've done far more DBTs of many kinds than you or just about anybody else around here. You would have to gather a group of listeners, False. A DBT with one listener involves the same number of listeners as was mentioned in the OP for this thread. If one listener was inadaquate for one, then it is inadequate for the other. If one listener was adequate for one, then it was just a adequate for the other. you would have to have some way of switching between samples where the operator could not not be seen by the listeners, Many such means exist. Only a little cleverness and energy is required. and you would have to make sure that the outputs of both DUTs were equal to within a fraction of a dB. Test equipment capable of matching levels to that degree is widely available for low cost. I would say that it is a less than casual or convenient undertaking. I never said that it was casual or convenient, but with a worthy outcome is? |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
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. 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. 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. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Snip Why is the undithered sine wave interesting, anyway? It can't happen in any recording. I suppose it makes an interesting-looking picture. I don't know. Ask John Atkinson of Stereophile. They are part of the suite of tests he uses to test DACs and they do show a degree of noise modulation and that degree does differ with different DAC models. I know, but I suspect that the only reason to print those is to show something that is measurably different. Andrew. I agree. I just don't know what that is.... |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... Agreed. But since Mr. Kruger has obviously not compared the DACs in question (had he done so, he would have mentioned it as part of his argument) I believe that it is he who has wandered off-argument. Yes, that DACs is totally magic, and all of the 100s of DACs that I have compared are in no way comparable to it. ;-) Thus we have yet another example of questionable logic. A global generalization has been made, but in the end it can't be supported until you have listened to a certain single magic DAC. And if you believe all that.... !!!!!! But still, you haven't listened to the DACs in question, have you? No? Despite the vain efforts to dismiss the critical point, it remains unaddressed. For the record I have auditioned a great number of "magic components" over the years and they all have failed to impress to any exceptional degree once personal bias and bad listening tests are factored out of the situation. You still fail to see the salient point here. This is your all MERELY your opinion. Remind me again where personal opinions are excluded from this discussion. The evaluation described in the OP of this thread was so casual and crude that its outcome is no better than a personal opinion. If you wish to exclude personal opinions then we should close the thread instantly. ;-) Just because you can't (or won't) hear something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Doesn't matter since my discussion of DAC testing is based on many tests done by many different persons. My opinion is that electronics DO differ in they way they sound. I agree, but I know for sure this is not a global truth. In fact some electronics is so flawed that it colors sound, much isn't. And there is no scientific reason why they shouldn't. True only if we disregard maybe 80 years of wisdom about the thresholds of audibility for various kinds of technical differences. There's a lot of very good audio gear out there, and coming up with something electronic that actually sounds excpetional is a very tall order. I agree. Modern solid-state amps are pretty transparent. The audible differences between them are very small, but I've yet to hear two different amplifiers that sound exactly alike. The differences might be trivial, but they are differences. DACs are a different story. The difference between them can be quite profound, IME. Your experience to date appears to be of the same basic nature of personal opinions which you wish to disgregard... Since frequency response (within the passband) of most DACs, even cheap ones, is pretty flat, and noise + distortion is similarly low to inaudible, the differences in DACs is down to how much information that they can retrieve. That's known as dynamic range and is very measurable and well known. The relatively poor dynamic range of all recordings sets a fairly high floor for this quantity. For instance, instruments that can't be identified on a cheap DAC become instantly recognizable on a better one such as the difference between a Fender-Rhodes electric piano and an acoustic piano. I see no reliable evidence or even any quantification of that claim. Dismissed! |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... My point was simply that there can be biases AGAINST some things sounding different as well as biases in favor of the proposition. While DBT and ABX will remove the bias in tests where the participants DO believe, for instance that cables all sound different , but it won't remove the bias from people who DON'T believe it - unless, of course, as you pointed out, they don't know at all what they are listening to. Then the test would be free of that type of bias. The above ignores a well known aspect of human nature which is to strive for a positive result from any activity that requires substantial effort. An ABX test requires substantial effort on the part of listeners so the listeners will follow their human nature and strive for a positive result simply because they are expending the effort and don't want the outcome to be futile. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On Nov 22, 7:11=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... My point was simply that there can be biases AGAINST some things sounding different as well as biases in favor of the proposition. While DBT and ABX will remove the bias in tests where the participants DO believe, for instance that cables all sound different , but it won't remove the bias from people who DON'T believe it - unless, of course, a= s you pointed out, they don't know at all what they are listening to. The= n the test would be free of that type of bias. The above ignores a well known aspect of human nature which is to strive = for a positive result from any activity that requires substantial effort. An ABX test requires substantial effort on the part of listeners so the listeners will =A0follow their human nature and strive for a positive res= ult simply because they are expending the effort and don't want the outcome t= o be futile. The above ignores all the research on psychoacoustics and the profound effects of bias on our perceptions. You are basically saying that listeners can and do "will away" a bias of same sound. Everything we know about bias effects on our aural perceptions goes against this idea. So if you wanna throw out all that scientific research on psychoacoustics go ahead. But don't be waving the science flag anymore. And if this profoundly wrong assumption about bias effects has stopped you from using bias controls against a same sound bias then, honestly, all those ABX DBTs you have done are pretty close to worthless. Doing things often does not equal doing things well. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! This did not happen by osmosis. The major age-dependent degradation of the CDP 101 is that it starts subtly losing the ability to track seemingly good CDs due to degradation of specific proprietary Sony chips. This shows up on the bench, but many non-critical listeners miss it. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! This did not happen by osmosis. The major age-dependent degradation of the CDP 101 is that it starts subtly losing the ability to track seemingly good CDs due to degradation of specific proprietary Sony chips. This shows up on the bench, but many non-critical listeners miss it. I'm sorry, but, in my opinion, that thing sounded like crap when new. How anyone could say it sounds great is beyond me. Maybe there was a lot of unit-to-unit variation (that is unlikely, but it is possible). |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! This did not happen by osmosis. The major age-dependent degradation of the CDP 101 is that it starts subtly losing the ability to track seemingly good CDs due to degradation of specific proprietary Sony chips. This shows up on the bench, but many non-critical listeners miss it. I'm sorry, but, in my opinion, that thing sounded like crap when new. How anyone could say it sounds great is beyond me. Maybe there was a lot of unit-to-unit variation (that is unlikely, but it is possible). |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , It's too bad that double-blind or ABX tests are so difficult to arrange. Often proper DBTs are every easy to arrange. A DBT comparing DACs would be an example of one of the easier tests to set up. I disagree. To coin a phrase "Saying it is so doesn't make it so". There's a big well known difference between us - I've done far more DBTs of many kinds than you or just about anybody else around here. You would have to gather a group of listeners, False. A DBT with one listener involves the same number of listeners as was mentioned in the OP for this thread. If one listener was inadaquate for one, then it is inadequate for the other. If one listener was adequate for one, then it was just a adequate for the other. you would have to have some way of switching between samples where the operator could not not be seen by the listeners, Many such means exist. Only a little cleverness and energy is required. and you would have to make sure that the outputs of both DUTs were equal to within a fraction of a dB. Test equipment capable of matching levels to that degree is widely available for low cost. I would say that it is a less than casual or convenient undertaking. I never said that it was casual or convenient, but with a worthy outcome is? Thank you for confirming my comments about DBTs being extremely non trivial and definitely not "very easy to arrange" as you said in your earlier post. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On 11/24/2012 2:57 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. **Fortunately, my business is service to audio equipment. I have the service data, the techniques and test equipment to keep old CD players (and most other audio equipment) meeting their original specs for many years. Over the years, I've repaired several dozen CDP101 players. As a consequence, I have built up a reasonable stock of the odd-ball parts required for this model. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! **I have a CDP101 that meets it's original specs (I use Sony test discs and Pierre Verany test discs to verify Red Book performance) and it does not approach the sound of a quality player like the Marantz CD80. This did not happen by osmosis. The major age-dependent degradation of the CDP 101 is that it starts subtly losing the ability to track seemingly good CDs due to degradation of specific proprietary Sony chips. This shows up on the bench, but many non-critical listeners miss it. **Fortunately I possess the equipment, the knowledge and the service data to verify the performance of most Red book CD players. I suggest you acquire a Marantz CD80 and perform your own experiments. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote: On 11/24/2012 2:57 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. **Fortunately, my business is service to audio equipment. I have the service data, the techniques and test equipment to keep old CD players (and most other audio equipment) meeting their original specs for many years. Over the years, I've repaired several dozen CDP101 players. As a consequence, I have built up a reasonable stock of the odd-ball parts required for this model. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! **I have a CDP101 that meets it's original specs (I use Sony test discs and Pierre Verany test discs to verify Red Book performance) and it does not approach the sound of a quality player like the Marantz CD80. This did not happen by osmosis. The major age-dependent degradation of the CDP 101 is that it starts subtly losing the ability to track seemingly good CDs due to degradation of specific proprietary Sony chips. This shows up on the bench, but many non-critical listeners miss it. **Fortunately I possess the equipment, the knowledge and the service data to verify the performance of most Red book CD players. I suggest you acquire a Marantz CD80 and perform your own experiments. I too have the Pierre Verany test discs and used them to check the CDP-101 before I returned it. It tracked everything perfectly (except the biggest gap. Few players will track that - even today). The problems that I had with the CDP-101 that I was loaned was that it sounded just as exactly as I remember them sounding when the player was new; I.E. LOUSY, terrible, unlistenable (by me anyway)! |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote: On 11/24/2012 2:57 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. **Fortunately, my business is service to audio equipment. I have the service data, the techniques and test equipment to keep old CD players (and most other audio equipment) meeting their original specs for many years. Over the years, I've repaired several dozen CDP101 players. As a consequence, I have built up a reasonable stock of the odd-ball parts required for this model. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! **I have a CDP101 that meets it's original specs (I use Sony test discs and Pierre Verany test discs to verify Red Book performance) and it does not approach the sound of a quality player like the Marantz CD80. This did not happen by osmosis. The major age-dependent degradation of the CDP 101 is that it starts subtly losing the ability to track seemingly good CDs due to degradation of specific proprietary Sony chips. This shows up on the bench, but many non-critical listeners miss it. **Fortunately I possess the equipment, the knowledge and the service data to verify the performance of most Red book CD players. I suggest you acquire a Marantz CD80 and perform your own experiments. I too have the Pierre Verany test discs and used them to check the CDP-101 before I returned it. It tracked everything perfectly (except the biggest gap. Few players will track that - even today). The problems that I had with the CDP-101 that I was loaned was that it sounded just as exactly as I remember them sounding when the player was new; I.E. LOUSY, terrible, unlistenable (by me anyway)! |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On 11/27/2012 9:35 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson wrote: On 11/24/2012 2:57 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. **Fortunately, my business is service to audio equipment. I have the service data, the techniques and test equipment to keep old CD players (and most other audio equipment) meeting their original specs for many years. Over the years, I've repaired several dozen CDP101 players. As a consequence, I have built up a reasonable stock of the odd-ball parts required for this model. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! **I have a CDP101 that meets it's original specs (I use Sony test discs and Pierre Verany test discs to verify Red Book performance) and it does not approach the sound of a quality player like the Marantz CD80. This did not happen by osmosis. The major age-dependent degradation of the CDP 101 is that it starts subtly losing the ability to track seemingly good CDs due to degradation of specific proprietary Sony chips. This shows up on the bench, but many non-critical listeners miss it. **Fortunately I possess the equipment, the knowledge and the service data to verify the performance of most Red book CD players. I suggest you acquire a Marantz CD80 and perform your own experiments. I too have the Pierre Verany test discs and used them to check the CDP-101 before I returned it. It tracked everything perfectly (except the biggest gap. Few players will track that - even today). The problems that I had with the CDP-101 that I was loaned was that it sounded just as exactly as I remember them sounding when the player was new; I.E. LOUSY, terrible, unlistenable (by me anyway)! **I attended the official Australian release of some high end Sony equipment, including their very nice Esprit amplification, and their surprisingly good flat driver speakers. The demo was being run with a CDP101, but I spotted a CDP701 in a corner on static display. I requested a listen. The demonstrator claimed that the only differences were cosmetic and operational (and a whole bunch more Dollars). Nonetheless, he acquiesed. I listened for about 10 seconds and shot the demonstrator a question: "Are you serious? The CDP701 is a clearly superior sounding player (and it was)." The demonstrator admitted that the 701 was superior to the 101. When I walked out, the 101 was hastily re-connected. Sony had little interest in trying to sell high priced players. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote: On 11/27/2012 9:35 AM, Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Trevor Wilson wrote: On 11/24/2012 2:57 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. **Fortunately, my business is service to audio equipment. I have the service data, the techniques and test equipment to keep old CD players (and most other audio equipment) meeting their original specs for many years. Over the years, I've repaired several dozen CDP101 players. As a consequence, I have built up a reasonable stock of the odd-ball parts required for this model. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! **I have a CDP101 that meets it's original specs (I use Sony test discs and Pierre Verany test discs to verify Red Book performance) and it does not approach the sound of a quality player like the Marantz CD80. This did not happen by osmosis. The major age-dependent degradation of the CDP 101 is that it starts subtly losing the ability to track seemingly good CDs due to degradation of specific proprietary Sony chips. This shows up on the bench, but many non-critical listeners miss it. **Fortunately I possess the equipment, the knowledge and the service data to verify the performance of most Red book CD players. I suggest you acquire a Marantz CD80 and perform your own experiments. I too have the Pierre Verany test discs and used them to check the CDP-101 before I returned it. It tracked everything perfectly (except the biggest gap. Few players will track that - even today). The problems that I had with the CDP-101 that I was loaned was that it sounded just as exactly as I remember them sounding when the player was new; I.E. LOUSY, terrible, unlistenable (by me anyway)! **I attended the official Australian release of some high end Sony equipment, including their very nice Esprit amplification, and their surprisingly good flat driver speakers. The demo was being run with a CDP101, but I spotted a CDP701 in a corner on static display. I requested a listen. The demonstrator claimed that the only differences were cosmetic and operational (and a whole bunch more Dollars). Nonetheless, he acquiesed. I listened for about 10 seconds and shot the demonstrator a question: "Are you serious? The CDP701 is a clearly superior sounding player (and it was)." The demonstrator admitted that the 701 was superior to the 101. When I walked out, the 101 was hastily re-connected. Sony had little interest in trying to sell high priced players. They could make good ones when they wanted to, however. As I have mentioned here before, I have a Sony XA777ES SACD player from circa 2004. While it is an excellent SACD player, it is a SUPERB Red Book CD player. In fact it is arguably the best sounding CD player I've ever heard. It has several output filter settings and to me, one of them is heads and shoulders above the others - needless to say, that's the one I leave it set to. I'll keep it 'till it can't be repaired any more! |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
"Scott" wrote in message
... On Nov 22, 7:11 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... My point was simply that there can be biases AGAINST some things sounding different as well as biases in favor of the proposition. While DBT and ABX will remove the bias in tests where the participants DO believe, for instance that cables all sound different , but it won't remove the bias from people who DON'T believe it - unless, of course, as you pointed out, they don't know at all what they are listening to. Then the test would be free of that type of bias. The above ignores a well known aspect of human nature which is to strive for a positive result from any activity that requires substantial effort. An ABX test requires substantial effort on the part of listeners so the listeners will follow their human nature and strive for a positive result simply because they are expending the effort and don't want the outcome to be futile. The above ignores all the research on psychoacoustics and the profound effects of bias on our perceptions. You are basically saying that listeners can and do "will away" a bias of same sound. I said nothing of the sort. What I did say is that an inherent component of the human personality will often assert itself and modify the outcome. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On Nov 27, 7:19=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message ... On Nov 22, 7:11 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... My point was simply that there can be biases AGAINST some things sounding different as well as biases in favor of the proposition. The= n the test would be free of that type of bias. The above ignores a well known aspect of human nature which is to strive for a positive result from any activity that requires substantial effort. An ABX test requires substantial effort on the part of listeners so the listeners w ill follow their human nature and strive for a positive res= ult simply because they are expending the effort and don't want the outcome= to be futile. The above ignores all the research on psychoacoustics and the profound effects of bias on our perceptions. You are basically saying that listeners can and do "will away" a bias of same sound. I said nothing of the sort. What I did say is that an inherent component = of the human personality will often assert itself and modify the outcome. In effect you did. Audio Empire points out this *fact* in his post above "While DBT and ABX will remove the bias in tests where the participants DO believe, for instance that cables all sound different , but it won't remove the bias from people who DON'T believe it - unless, of course, as you pointed out, they don't know at all what they are listening to." You assert above that quoted *fact* "ignores a well known aspect of human nature which is to strive for a positive result from any activity that requires substantial effort. An ABX test requires substantial effort on the part of listeners so the listeners w ill follow their human nature and strive for a positive result simply because they are expending the effort and don't want the outcome to be futile." So you absolutely are in effect asserting that the "modified outcome" is that one can will away their same sound biases in an ABX DBT due to the effort involved in doing such a test. And that does fly in the face of all the research done on bias effects in audio. Effort does not make bias effects go away. You are totally mischaracterizing human nature. We know what human nature is from the research on bias effects. Human nature is that you can't make bias effects go away just because one is investing their time and efforts into an ABX DBT or any other endeavor. Heck one could say exactly the same thing about any sighted test. I could just as easily say that dismissing sighted tests based on bias effects ignores a well known aspect of human nature which is to strive for a positive result from any activity that requires substantial effort. A sighted test test requires substantial effort on the part of listeners so the listeners will follow their human nature and strive for an accurate result simply because they are expending the effort and don't want the outcome to be futile. But we know from mountains of research on psychoacoustics that this simply is not true and is not human nature at all. Your assertion about human nature and it's effects on human bias is plainly wrong and flies in the face of all the research on psychoacoustics. And what we can deduce from this is that *any* ABX DBT that allows the subjects to know what A and B are ahead of time either needs to have some extra controls for same sound bias or may suffer from the effect of same sound bias. If no such controls were implemented in such a test and the result was a null we have no way of knowing if the result was due to bias effects or not. Any such test is completely corrupted by the lack of bias controls and is worthless as scientific data. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
... On 11/24/2012 2:57 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. **Fortunately, my business is service to audio equipment. I have the service data, the techniques and test equipment to keep old CD players (and most other audio equipment) meeting their original specs for many years. Over the years, I've repaired several dozen CDP101 players. As a consequence, I have built up a reasonable stock of the odd-ball parts required for this model. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! **I have a CDP101 that meets it's original specs (I use Sony test discs and Pierre Verany test discs to verify Red Book performance) and it does not approach the sound of a quality player like the Marantz CD80. Since every sound quality problem has a measurable flaw at the bottom of it, and since you claim that you have done thorough measurements of both players, please explain your subjective opinons with the objective data that you have. Since I have my own data, we'll see exactly how well you restored the CDP 101! |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On 11/28/2012 9:24 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... On 11/24/2012 2:57 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. **Fortunately, my business is service to audio equipment. I have the service data, the techniques and test equipment to keep old CD players (and most other audio equipment) meeting their original specs for many years. Over the years, I've repaired several dozen CDP101 players. As a consequence, I have built up a reasonable stock of the odd-ball parts required for this model. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! **I have a CDP101 that meets it's original specs (I use Sony test discs and Pierre Verany test discs to verify Red Book performance) and it does not approach the sound of a quality player like the Marantz CD80. Since every sound quality problem has a measurable flaw at the bottom of it, and since you claim that you have done thorough measurements of both players, please explain your subjective opinons with the objective data that you have. **I cannot. The CDP101 meets (exceeds, actually) Red Book standards. It meets it's own specs, as per the service manual. The Marantz CD80 does likewise. I can't explain the audible differences that I (and 3 others) heard during blind tests. Have you acquired a Marantz CD80 to perform your own listening tests? Since I have my own data, we'll see exactly how well you restored the CDP 101! **Like I said: Refer to the published specs. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote: On 11/28/2012 9:24 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... On 11/24/2012 2:57 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. Absolute proof some people don't know how to maintain legacy equipment so that it works and sounds as good as new. **Fortunately, my business is service to audio equipment. I have the service data, the techniques and test equipment to keep old CD players (and most other audio equipment) meeting their original specs for many years. Over the years, I've repaired several dozen CDP101 players. As a consequence, I have built up a reasonable stock of the odd-ball parts required for this model. I have a CDP 101 that meets original spec and sounds great! **I have a CDP101 that meets it's original specs (I use Sony test discs and Pierre Verany test discs to verify Red Book performance) and it does not approach the sound of a quality player like the Marantz CD80. Since every sound quality problem has a measurable flaw at the bottom of it, and since you claim that you have done thorough measurements of both players, please explain your subjective opinons with the objective data that you have. **I cannot. The CDP101 meets (exceeds, actually) Red Book standards. It meets it's own specs, as per the service manual. The Marantz CD80 does likewise. I can't explain the audible differences that I (and 3 others) heard during blind tests. Have you acquired a Marantz CD80 to perform your own listening tests? Since I have my own data, we'll see exactly how well you restored the CDP 101! **Like I said: Refer to the published specs. Since my opinion of the CDP-101 is essentially the same as yours, and since someone else also made a similar observation about the CDP-101's sound and add to that the fact that it was reviewed by several magazines at the time as being of an audio quality that did not bode well for the future of CD as an audiophile format, I'd say that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the Sony CDP-101 was not a very good-sounding player. I'm not sure what it says about the two posters to this NG who insist that the CDP-101 sounds fine. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 09:55:10 UTC+11, Audio_Empire wrote:
...the CDP-101's sound and add to that the fact that it was reviewed by several magazines at the time as being of an audio quality that did not bode well for the future of CD as an audiophile format... Can you recall which magazines these were? What were their views on cable sound? |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 7:29:16 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2012 09:55:10 UTC+11, Audio_Empire wrote: ...the CDP-101's sound and add to that the fact that it was reviewed by several magazines at the time as being of an audio quality that did not bode well for the future of CD as an audiophile format... Can you recall which magazines these were? What were their views on cable sound? Seems to me that one was "The Absolute Sound", and the other might have been Gordon Holt in "Stereophile" or it could have been "Hi-Fi news and Record Review". I don't know about cables, but most likely "TAS" editorial policy was that cables could be heard. On the other hand, I don't remember when cables became important enough in the marketplace for these publications to take serious notice of them. But I see what you are getting at he If a magazine reviewer can hear cable sound when there is none, then how can one trust a review of anything that such a magazine reviewer would say about sound. You have a point. The only thing that I can say, is that magazines use use many different reviewers and some might believe in cable sound and some wouldn't. I don't know who actually wrote the scathing reviews of the Sony CDP-101, so I really can't say. What I can say is that I remember the reviews for the exact same reason that I didn't purchase a Sony CDP-101 - I could hear what they heard. When it came to the first generation of CD players, I found the little, silver, top-loading Magnavox CD-100 to be the best sounding player of all of them, so that's what *I* bought. That is also the reason why I remember the CDP-101 reviews so vividly (too bad I don't remember the reviewers as well). |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... Since my opinion of the CDP-101 is essentially the same as yours, and since someone else also made a similar observation about the CDP-101's sound and add to that the fact that it was reviewed by several magazines at the time as being of an audio quality that did not bode well for the future of CD as an audiophile format, I'd say that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the Sony CDP-101 was not a very good-sounding player. I'm not sure what it says about the two posters to this NG who insist that the CDP-101 sounds fine. It says that at least one of them actually tested it in accordance with the formal definition of a test, which means a dreict comparision to a reliable standard. My comparisons involved comparison to the source file that was used to burn the CD being listened to via the CDP 101. FWIW the DBTs that were published in Stereo Review agree with me. To the best of my knowlege every other review ever published was based on sighted evaluations. There was a lot of hysteria about digital when CD players first came out, some of which is yet to be dispelled. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On Dec 3, 7:51*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... Since my opinion of the CDP-101 is essentially the same as yours, and since someone else also made a similar observation about the CDP-101's sound and add to that the fact that it was reviewed by several magazines at the time as being of an audio quality that did not bode well for the future of CD as an audiophile format, I'd say that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the Sony CDP-101 was not a very good-sounding player. I'm not sure what it says about the two posters to this NG who insist that the CDP-101 sounds fine. It says that at least one of them actually tested it in accordance with the formal definition of a test, which means a dreict comparision to a reliable standard. My comparisons involved comparison to the source file that was used to burn the CD being listened to via the CDP 101. FWIW the DBTs that were published in Stereo Review agree with me. To the best of my knowlege every other review ever published was based on sighted evaluations. There was a lot of hysteria about digital when CD players first came out, some of which is yet to be dispelled. There were no DBTs published in Stereo Review about the CDP 101. In fact there were never any DBTs published in Stereo Review of any CD players. To the best of my recollection Stereo Review didn't do DBTs at all for any of their product reviews. We also know that the folks at Stereo Review had an obvious same sound bias when it came to CD players as well as any form of amplification. They had a history of making erroneous claims in their reviews of tube gear that the products were audibly indistinguishable from any other gear. Where can I find the "formal" definition of a "test?" Seems the definitions I find in various dictionaries don't seem to jive with your "formal" defenition. Never knew Websters was so "informal." There certainly was a lot of hysteria about digital back then. Some of which has yet to be dispelled. "Perfect sound forever" comes to mind. It's amazing how much digital technology has advanced since then given it's state of perfection at the time. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On Monday, December 3, 2012 7:51:08 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... Since my opinion of the CDP-101 is essentially the same as yours, and since someone else also made a similar observation about the CDP-101's sound and add to that the fact that it was reviewed by several magazines at the time as being of an audio quality that did not bode well for the future of CD as an audiophile format, I'd say that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the Sony CDP-101 was not a very good-sounding player. I'm not sure what it says about the two posters to this NG who insist that the CDP-101 sounds fine. It says that at least one of them actually tested it in accordance with the formal definition of a test, which means a dreict comparision to a reliable standard. My comparisons involved comparison to the source file that was used to burn the CD being listened to via the CDP 101. Unfortunately, if one tests the wrongs things, then a device that measured well can still sound bad. FWIW the DBTs that were published in Stereo Review agree with me. To the best of my knowlege every other review ever published was based on sighted evaluations. I can tell you that I listened to a CDP-101 for several weeks before rejecting it. My comment to friends at the time was that if this is what we have to look forward to with Compact Disc, then I'd stick to LP. Luckily a week or so later I heard the same CDs played on a Magnavox CD-100 and T remember that my opinion flipped almost 180 degrees. Where the Sony was harsh and ugly sounding, the little Magnavox was sweet and clean. I still have that little player and it still works and it still sounds OK. There was a lot of hysteria about digital when CD players first came out, Oh, yes. I clearly remember a lament from a reader published in "The Absolute Sound" where he was bemoaning that digital had ruined recorded music. (you could almost feel the man's tears) and that to him CD sounded like a "cartoon" image of the music. Good thing most people didn't pay any attention to opinions of this type. And CD did improve vastly in the medium's first 5 years. some of which is yet to be dispelled. I dunno, I don't see that kind of rejection of CD at all any more. Audio_Empire |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On Dec 4, 8:23=A0am, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Monday, December 3, 2012 7:51:08 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... Since my opinion of the CDP-101 is essentially the same as yours, and since someone else also made a similar observation about the CDP-101'= s sound and add to that the fact that it was reviewed by several magazi= nes at the time as being of an audio quality that did not bode well for t= he future of CD as an audiophile format, I'd say that the preponderance = of evidence suggests that the Sony CDP-101 was not a very good-sounding player. I'm not sure what it says about the two posters to this NG wh= o insist that the CDP-101 sounds fine. It says that at least one of them actually tested it in accordance with= the formal definition of a test, which means a dreict comparision to a reli= able standard. My comparisons involved comparison to the source file that wa= s used to burn the CD being listened to via the CDP 101. Unfortunately, if one tests the wrongs things, then a device that measure= d well can still sound bad. FWIW the DBTs that were published in Stereo Review agree with me. To th= e best of my knowlege every other review ever published was based on sigh= ted evaluations. I can tell you that I listened to a CDP-101 for several weeks before reje= cting it. My comment to friends at the time was that if this is what we hav= e to look forward to with Compact Disc, then I'd stick to LP. Luckily a wee= k or so later I heard the same CDs played on a Magnavox CD-100 and T rememb= er that my =A0opinion flipped almost 180 degrees. Where the Sony was harsh = and ugly sounding, the little Magnavox was sweet and clean. I still have th= at little player and it still works and it still sounds OK. There was a lot of hysteria about digital when CD players first came ou= t, Oh, yes. I clearly remember a lament from a reader published in "The Abso= lute Sound" where he was bemoaning that digital had ruined recorded music. = (you could almost feel the man's tears) and that to him CD sounded like a "= cartoon" image of the music. Good thing most people didn't pay any attentio= n to opinions of this type. And CD did improve vastly in the medium's first= 5 years. IMO quite the opposite was true. It's a good thing that people involved in making CD players and mastering CDs *did* pay attention to opinions of that type. It was the subjectivist audiophile community that went out on a limb and was willing to point out all the short comings they were hearing from early CD players and early CDs. They did this in the face of all the claims of audible perfection. If it were not for the protests of such audiophiles where would the impetus to fix those problems have come from? If one thinks they already have perfection there aint no reason to make it better is there? So really it's a good thing that some folks did pay attention to the subjective responses to the new format. You won't look to solve problems that you don't believe exist. some of which is yet to be dispelled. I dunno, I don't see that kind of rejection of CD at all any more. And for good reason. The state of the art of CD mastering and playback has improved since then as you have noted and critical listeners have heard the differences and have liked the improvements. But where would we be had there not been the kind of rejection that there was in the early days of CD? I mean really, imagine what the state of digital would be were it not for critical listening. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On 12/4/2012 2:51 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... FWIW the DBTs that were published in Stereo Review agree with me. **Please point me to the issue in which this test was published. I have a pretty decent collection of old audio magazines. If I was really bored, I'd even pick up an issue of Stereo Review. I may still have it. OTOH, I still have every issue of Audio magazine I purchased. Now THAT was a proper audio publication. Stereo Review was strictly a fire-starter only. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
... On 12/4/2012 2:51 PM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... FWIW the DBTs that were published in Stereo Review agree with me. **Please point me to the issue in which this test was published. I have a pretty decent collection of old audio magazines. If I was really bored, I'd even pick up an issue of Stereo Review. I may still have it. OTOH, I still have every issue of Audio magazine I purchased. Now THAT was a proper audio publication. Stereo Review was strictly a fire-starter only. Given the utter disdain for SR, I can't imagine why you would want to know more details. However, this is the reference you seek: Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) I am fully aware of the typical high end audiophile disdain for SR and in particular Julian Hirsch. IME both he and the magazine rocked a lot of cradles by spiking any number of audiophile myths. Compared to the underground publications of the day it was a paragon of science and factuality. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On 12/5/2012 9:36 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... On 12/4/2012 2:51 PM, Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... FWIW the DBTs that were published in Stereo Review agree with me. **Please point me to the issue in which this test was published. I have a pretty decent collection of old audio magazines. If I was really bored, I'd even pick up an issue of Stereo Review. I may still have it. OTOH, I still have every issue of Audio magazine I purchased. Now THAT was a proper audio publication. Stereo Review was strictly a fire-starter only. Given the utter disdain for SR, I can't imagine why you would want to know more details. **SR was for children. Audio was for adults. SR was strictly for emergency boredom only. However, this is the reference you seek: Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) **Thanks for that. I'll see if I can locate it. I am fully aware of the typical high end audiophile disdain for SR and in particular Julian Hirsch. IME both he and the magazine rocked a lot of cradles by spiking any number of audiophile myths. Compared to the underground publications of the day it was a paragon of science and factuality. **No, it wasn't. That honour was reserved for Audio magazine. SR was for children. And rather undiscrinimating ones at that. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
On 12/4/2012 2:51 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... FWIW the DBTs that were published in Stereo Review agree with me. **Please point me to the issue in which this test was published. I have a pretty decent collection of old audio magazines. If I was really bored, I'd even pick up an issue of Stereo Review. I may still have it. OTOH, I still have every issue of Audio magazine I purchased. Now THAT was a proper audio publication. Stereo Review was strictly a fire-starter only. You can say that again! Stereo Review's audience was neophytes looking to buy a stereo system for the first time, and they repeated the same "starter" subjects over and over and over. But their editorial policy was that their "loyalty" was to the PR agencies of manufacturers (High-Fidelity magazine, too). They were essentially a pipeline from the manufacturers to the consumer. They essentially had no critical facility. Remember Julian Hirsch's reviews? "Of all the (amplifiers, receivers, turntables, CD players. You name it) that this reviewer has ever tested, this was one of them." 8^) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Big differences between 44.1 and 96Khz. Why? | Pro Audio | |||
Differences between EL 84 and EL 34 ...? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
u87 differences | Pro Audio | |||
u87 differences | Pro Audio | |||
RME 8di Pro Vs DS.. Differences? | Pro Audio |