[paperw8]

i am considering purchasing a wadia 581 cd player and am interested in
reading of opinions on this unit.

i have seen some of the rave reviews of the unit but i am a bit
skeptical of audiophile reviews - some of the language seems so over the
top and inflated that i am inclined to wonder about the impartiality of
the writers. for example, i have never been convinced that you can
discern the difference between $50 interconnect cable and $2500
interconnect cable. the odd thing is that many of the reviews are
written by middle aged guys...who's hearing ability is probably on the
decline relative to their youth (when they couldn't have afforded to buy
the stuff that they write so glowingly about).

i currently own a krell kav-300cd player and my experience with that
unit has made me a bit hesitant about the audiophile cd players in
general. for example, the krell unit retailed at $4200; yet an index
track selection capability. i mean, that's a feature that you would get
on a $200 sony cd player...and a $4200 unit doesn't have it?

another quirk about the krell unit had to do with how it treated
transients at the start of a track when you did random track selection.
when you did random track selection on a track, you would hear a
volume ramp delay. so a track that would supposed to start out with a
lot of energy from the first beat sounded faded in. i sent the unit
back to krell and their "solution" was to disable the feature that
killed the volume when you did a track scan. so now, when i scan a
track i hear sound as the head scans across the disk.

don't get me wrong, the krell is a nice sounding unit, but it has quirks
that you would think should not be present in such an expensive unit.

.....and the funny thing about it is that the first thing that went sour
on the krell unit was this cheap plastic gear that couples the motor to
the cd spindle.

when i looked at the features of the wadia unit, i noticed that both the
wadia 581 (a $10,000 unit) and the wadia 781 (a $15,000 unit) lacked
programmable play, a-b segment repeat capability and index track
selection. furthermore, the user manual doesn't tell you how to set up
some of the features in the unit. for example, the wadia units feature
configurable digital volume control. yet, the manual doesn't tell you
how to actually set a volume level. the idea is that wadia apparently
wants you to have to go to a dealer to get the information. i am also
wondering what other quirks might exist with the unit. when i see guys
selling units that purportedly have low playing hours or that have only
been owned for a few months, the thought that crosses my mind is whether
the person is ditching the unit because of some quirk that they didn't like.

one of the things that i like about the wadia 581i unit is the ability
to take digital inputs, so i could take a digital output from a cheap
dvd player and feed it as a direct input to the 581i.

anyway, i am interested in hearing comments about the wadia 581 and/or
wadia 781 (although i very much doubt that i would be able to justify
springing for the additional bucks for a 781, even if used) that might
help me in deciding whether to buy one.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 22, 8:09*am, paperw8 wrote:
i am considering purchasing a wadia 581 cd player and am interested in
reading of opinions on this unit.

[ excessive quotation of the original post snipped -dsr- ]

anyway, i am interested in hearing comments about the wadia 581 and/or
wadia 781 (although i very much doubt that i would be able to justify
springing for the additional bucks for a 781, even if used) that might
help me in deciding whether to buy one.

I dunno - it looks like it has a Philips-style transport, they all use
one-or-another D/A chipset, and from everything you have written it
does not have a particularly user-friendly manual nor is it easy or
intuitive to set up.

For that price, in my opinion, it should was your car on alternate
Saturdays as well as clean your house on a daily basis. That it treats
you rudely instead suggest that you should *RUN*, not walk away.

As these things go, if you want to sink 4 - 5 figures into audio
stuff, start with the speakers and work backwards, not with the signal-
sources. The brute fact of the matter with CD players is that after
basic build-quality hurdles are cleared, you would be very hard-
pressed indeed to differentiate between the outputs from a $100 player
and from a $10,000 player as-delivered through the speakers. Yes,
mechanical noises, longevity and features are all at-issue, but the
point of diminishing returns is quickly reached even at that level.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected]]

On Jan 22, 8:09*am, paperw8 wrote:
i am considering purchasing a wadia 581 cd player and am interested in
reading of opinions on this unit.

i have seen some of the rave reviews of the unit but i am a bit
skeptical of audiophile reviews - some of the language seems so over the
top and inflated that i am inclined to wonder about the impartiality of
the writers. *

That is certainly a valid concern.

for example, i have never been convinced that you can
discern the difference between $50 interconnect cable and $2500
interconnect cable. *

I am not convinced that it is even possible to hear any difference
between the throw-away interconnects that come with low-cost consumer
electronics and $50 cables.

the odd thing is that many of the reviews are
written by middle aged guys...who's hearing ability is probably on the
decline relative to their youth (when they couldn't have afforded to buy
the stuff that they write so glowingly about).

i currently own a krell kav-300cd player and my experience with that
unit has made me a bit hesitant about the audiophile cd players in
general. *for example, the krell unit retailed at $4200; yet an index
track selection capability. *i mean, that's a feature that you would get
on a $200 sony cd player...and a $4200 unit doesn't have it?


Does the Krell really sound any better than the Sony CD player anyway?

snip

....and the funny thing about it is that the first thing that went sour
on the krell unit was this cheap plastic gear that couples the motor to
the cd spindle.

But maybe its an audiophile plastic gear! The question here is what
are the real audio benefits of a Krell or a Wadia have over a Sony or
similarly reasonably-priced players.

snip

one of the things that i like about the wadia 581i unit is the ability
to take digital inputs, so i could take a digital output from a cheap
dvd player and feed it as a direct input to the 581i.

You could also take the digital output of a DVD player and run it into
a reasonably good receiver. It is not clear why there would be any
advantage using the Wadia for this purpose and using a receiver would
be much less expensive.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


Does the Krell really sound any better than the Sony CD
player anyway?

Right now there's plenty of evidence that some under-$50 DVD players are
sonically transparent reproducers of audio CDs. That means that *nothing*
sounds better, if sonic accuracy is your desire.

[Codifus]

On Jan 22, 8:09*am, paperw8 wrote:
i am considering purchasing a wadia 581 cd player and am interested in
reading of opinions on this unit..........

I looked at the 10K price tag and, after exclaiming holy cow(!), was
getting ready to advise that your money be better spent getting a very
good DAC. It turns out that the Wadia 581 is not only a CD player but
a DAC AND a digital pre amplifier. The 581 will accept SPIDF and
Toslink inputs up to 96 Khz. All you need is a power amp and speakers
with the 581 being the heart of your digital audio system. Sexy.

In that case, I gather that the Wadia's DAC innards are comparable to,
and hopefully much better than DACs such as the BenchMark DAC1 or the
Lavry DA10, both well regarded DACs that cost approximately $1000.00,
a 10th as much as the 581. Something tells me that the Wadia won't
disappoint.

If that is the case then it may be a worthy investment because a good
DAC will not go obsolete for a very long time, whereas CD as a playing
medium is looking at its grave, right next to 8 track, cassettes,
quadraphonics (multi-channel, here's looking at you!) and "cough-
cough"...vinyl

CD

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:07:24 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message


Does the Krell really sound any better than the Sony CD
player anyway?

Right now there's plenty of evidence that some under-$50 DVD players are
sonically transparent reproducers of audio CDs. That means that *nothing*
sounds better, if sonic accuracy is your desire.


Yet, they don't sound the same. If they all did, your comment would be a
meaningful one.

[paperw8]

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:07:24 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


wrote in message


Does the Krell really sound any better than the Sony CD
player anyway?

Right now there's plenty of evidence that some under-$50 DVD players are
sonically transparent reproducers of audio CDs. That means that *nothing*
sounds better, if sonic accuracy is your desire.

Yet, they don't sound the same. If they all did, your comment would be a
meaningful one.


that is true, comparing my krell cd player to my low-end sony, i thought
that the krell cd player sounded better. part of this might be due to
the fact that i use the differential outputs from my krell cd player to
feed into the pre-amp where the sony had only single ended outputs.
even still, i thought that the single ended outputs from the krell cd
player sounded better. on the downside, the krell cd player had
glitches (which i previously describe) that were not present in the sony
cd player.

this is the problem that i have with the high end cd players: you pay a
lot of money, and you do get some things for it (for example, in terms
of sound reproduction quality). on the other hand, you are also likely
to get some glitches in the package, as i did with my krell cd player.
i find it hard to believe that *none* of the so-called audiophile
reviewers could have picked up on the glitches that i did. i mean, i
discovered glitches without looking for them: so why couldn't reviewers
who presumably *are* looking for them couldn't find them? or maybe they
did find them and just neglected to mention them in their reviews?
you can see why i have come to wonder about the impartiality of the
reviewers.

so my primary concern about the wadia is: what are the glitches?

i have read of some. for example, one of the features that wadia pushes
is the ability got drive directly into a power amp stage. but in
comments that i have read on audiogon, some have experienced ground hum
when they did that. the ground hum went away when they went through a
pre-amp.

it's a lot of money to pay to wonder if you are going to get glitches;
and when i see people selling presumably "near new" units, it makes me
wonder...

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:02:42 -0800, paperw8 wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:07:24 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


wrote in message


Does the Krell really sound any better than the Sony CD
player anyway?

Right now there's plenty of evidence that some under-$50 DVD players are
sonically transparent reproducers of audio CDs. That means that *nothing*
sounds better, if sonic accuracy is your desire.

Yet, they don't sound the same. If they all did, your comment would be a
meaningful one.


that is true, comparing my krell cd player to my low-end sony, i thought
that the krell cd player sounded better. part of this might be due to
the fact that i use the differential outputs from my krell cd player to
feed into the pre-amp where the sony had only single ended outputs.
even still, i thought that the single ended outputs from the krell cd
player sounded better. on the downside, the krell cd player had
glitches (which i previously describe) that were not present in the sony
cd player.

Basically, I feel the main differences between CD players are in the analog
stage and filter decisions made by the designers. All CD players use a chip
set for much of the processing and let's face it, nobody makes custom
"high-end" chip sets, so even an expensive CD player has to have some
mass-produced chips, especially in the transport stage, but often in the
data-handling as well. After that, CD players diverge. Some use single bit
serial DACs, some use multi-bit parallel DACs which time switch between right
and left channels, and some use separate stereo DACs and the really high-end
players use separate precision DACs of 24 and sometimes 32-bits. The analog
stages in cheap players use a chip set for the output. This chip set contains
everything from the anti-aliasing filters (which can be digital or analog) to
the output drivers to the headphone jack (if any) driver. Higher-priced
players use off-the shelf op-amps and possibly semi-custom DSP for filtering,
while High-End players often use discrete transistors for much of the analog
stage, including the filtering.

I have a Sony XA-777ES (basically the same as a SCD-777ES except that it is
front loading instead of top loading and has multi-channel playback
capability). One of the features of this player is the ability to alter the
filtering on CD playback. There are two positions: "Standard" ("provides a
wide frequency range and spatial feeling") and "Option" ("provides smooth and
powerful sound with clear image position"). While I would hesitate to take
these "Japanglish" descriptions literally, they do result in very different
presentations, especially in the upper midrange and top end. I prefer the
"Standard" and leave it there most of the time, but SOMETIMES the odd CD will
benefit from from the "Option" position. This has led me to my belief that
the differences in CD player sound is at least partially a result of the
filtering decisions made when the individual units are designed. Of course,
the REAL benefits of things like precision clocking and other anti-jitter
remedies as well as low error rate reading schemes has yet to be proven. It
may be that higher-end players score high marks, sonically, as a result of
these too. I don't know.

this is the problem that i have with the high end cd players: you pay a
lot of money, and you do get some things for it (for example, in terms
of sound reproduction quality). on the other hand, you are also likely
to get some glitches in the package, as i did with my krell cd player.
i find it hard to believe that *none* of the so-called audiophile
reviewers could have picked up on the glitches that i did. i mean, i
discovered glitches without looking for them: so why couldn't reviewers
who presumably *are* looking for them couldn't find them? or maybe they
did find them and just neglected to mention them in their reviews?
you can see why i have come to wonder about the impartiality of the
reviewers.

What kind of "glitches" are you referring to? Mechanical playback problems
like skips and track sticking, or problems with audible artifacts caused by
the electronics?

so my primary concern about the wadia is: what are the glitches?

i have read of some. for example, one of the features that wadia pushes
is the ability got drive directly into a power amp stage. but in
comments that i have read on audiogon, some have experienced ground hum
when they did that. the ground hum went away when they went through a
pre-amp.

I see. This sounds like a ground-loop to me and might be caused by any number
of things not directly related to the Wadia. I.E. it might not exhibit this
characteristic with another brand of power amp than the one the person on
Audiogon was using.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:07:24 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message


Does the Krell really sound any better than the Sony CD
player anyway?

Right now there's plenty of evidence that some under-$50
DVD players are sonically transparent reproducers of
audio CDs. That means that *nothing* sounds better, if
sonic accuracy is your desire.

Yet, they don't sound the same.

????

Nobody has ever proven that two reasonably good CD players sound different.

If they all did, your comment would be a meaningful one.

Not all CD players sound the same. There are a few that are just plain crap,
and some more that are doctored up with funny ge-gaws like tubes to sound
different. The rest all sound no different from each other.

To properly compare CD players requires 0.1 dB level matching, time
synching, and bias controls. There are very, very few people who have ever
gone to that trouble. I'm one of them.

[jingus]

Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:02:42 -0800, paperw8 wrote

this is the problem that i have with the high end cd players: you pay a
lot of money, and you do get some things for it (for example, in terms
of sound reproduction quality). on the other hand, you are also likely
to get some glitches in the package, as i did with my krell cd player.
i find it hard to believe that *none* of the so-called audiophile
reviewers could have picked up on the glitches that i did. i mean, i
discovered glitches without looking for them: so why couldn't reviewers
who presumably *are* looking for them couldn't find them? or maybe they
did find them and just neglected to mention them in their reviews?
you can see why i have come to wonder about the impartiality of the
reviewers.

What kind of "glitches" are you referring to? Mechanical playback problems
like skips and track sticking, or problems with audible artifacts caused by
the electronics?


i don't want to repeat my original post where i did describe what i was
talking but in a nutshell one issue had to do with slow volume ramp up
at the start of a track, the other had to do with the features. in both
cases, the krell had problems that my relatively cheap sony unit didn't
exhibit. you don't expect those kinds of things in a cd unit that costs
several thousand dollars more than a cheap unit.

so my primary concern about the wadia is: what are the glitches?

i have read of some. for example, one of the features that wadia pushes
is the ability got drive directly into a power amp stage. but in
comments that i have read on audiogon, some have experienced ground hum
when they did that. the ground hum went away when they went through a
pre-amp.

I see. This sounds like a ground-loop to me and might be caused by any number
of things not directly related to the Wadia. I.E. it might not exhibit this
characteristic with another brand of power amp than the one the person on
Audiogon was using.


it is clearly a ground loop problem but it's the kind of problem that
you are likely to discover after you have bought the unit.

[Arny Krueger]

"paperw8" wrote in message


that is true,

So you claim that you did a level-matched, time-synched, bias controlled
listening test?

comparing my Krell CD player to my low-end
Sony, i thought that the Krell CD player sounded better.

I'll bet money that it was louder.

part of this might be due to the fact that i use the
differential outputs from my Krell CD player to feed into
the pre-amp where the Sony had only single ended outputs.

If the preamp had balanced inputs, that all by itself would make it 6 dB
louder.

even still, i thought that the single ended outputs from
the Krell CD player sounded better. on the downside, the
Krell CD player had glitches (which i previously
describe) that were not present in the Sony CD player.

Then the Krell was essentially a POS or defective and needs repair.

this is the problem that i have with the high end cd
players: you pay a lot of money, and you do get some
things for it (for example, in terms of sound
reproduction quality).

There is no evidence of that being true.

These days even cheap CD players can have great performance. Being digital,
the economies of scale and technological development are tremendous. DAC
chip price/performance has progressed to the point where $1 chips provide
performance that was impossible 20 years ago at just about any price. Most
of the rest of a CD player has been reduced to a very small number of chips.
This compares with my original CDP-101 which had 3-4 *dozen* chips.

Mechanical parts like the transport have also undergone tremendous
cost-cutting. The need for mechanical precision has been vastly reduced
through more effective processing in the electronics.

I recently saw a case where someone unbuttoned the milled-billet solid
aluminum case of a $3K CD player and found a transport that is also used
in a $80 boom box. It's probably a wonderful transport, but it points out
where the high price of this product is *not* being spent.

And of course there are the situations where high end optical players are
just mid-fi players buried inside a fancy case.

[paperw8]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"paperw8" wrote in message

part of this might be due to the fact that i use the
differential outputs from my Krell CD player to feed into
the pre-amp where the Sony had only single ended outputs.

If the preamp had balanced inputs, that all by itself would make it 6 dB
louder.


i also suspect that the differential outputs also have a higher snr than
do the single ended outputs. as to the loudness, 6 db is a pretty large
volume difference and i can't say that my listening supports your
hypothesis. but then my pre-amp (a bryston) compensates for the higher
level of the differential input signal with input attenuation so it ends
up not sounding much louder than is the case with the single ended
inputs.



this is the problem that i have with the high end cd
players: you pay a lot of money, and you do get some
things for it (for example, in terms of sound
reproduction quality).


There is no evidence of that being true.


i should qualify my statement because while i don't agree with your
contention that all cd players sound the same, i do think that there
is a decreasing return to scale. for example, rotel makes mid-priced
cd players that sound very good. i have not heard the new bryston
cd player but i have a bryston pre-amp and power amp and have always
found bryston products to be quite good for the money relative to
other products that appeal to the "audiophile" segment.


I recently saw a case where someone unbuttoned the milled-billet solid
aluminum case of a $3K CD player and found a transport that is also used
in a $80 boom box. It's probably a wonderful transport, but it points out
where the high price of this product is *not* being spent.


i am actually quite inclined to agree with much of what you write. i
have long suspected that much of audiophile gear is oriented toward guys
who just want to spend lots of money on audio gear - as though the mere
spending of money is what assures quality. of course, with attitudes
like that i am sure that there is no shortage of purveyors of audio
equipment who are happy to "satisfy" the market.

of course, this kind of thing is not limited to audio equipment. i
recently replace some major appliances in my kithcen and the same thing
occurs: you have "high end" kitchen appliance brands that sell, for
example, ranges that cost several thousand dollars. yet, when you look
at the specifications on some of these products it's hard to tell how
these more expensive ranges perform any better than ranges costing
under $1,000. but, similar to the case with audio equipment, many
people equip their kitchens with the idea of building a "dream" kitchen.
toward that end, decisions tend to be made based on budgetary
considerations - for example, someone might decide that they want to
spend $75,000 remodeling their kitchen.

so this is my core source of skepticism about audiophile equipment: that
so much of it seems based on the premise of "a fool and his money will
soon be parted". so what i end up trying to do is sort out when are you
paying for something that sounds better as opposed to something that
merely "looks" better (since you have brands like jeff rowland that seem
to put a premium of eye-catching design). eye-catching design is nice,
and i don't criticize people who are willing to pay for it, it's just
not high on my list of priority items.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 25, 10:25*am, paperw8 wrote:

i am actually quite inclined to agree with much of what you write.

Look at it another way. My first reply to you was that there is little
difference _AT THE SPEAKERS_ between a basic *decent* CD player and
the high-priced spread. At-issue a

Quality of the transport: This has to do with
a) physical noise while functioning.
b) longevity.
c) reliability.
d) smoothness - as separate from noise - how well does it handle the
disc, open and close.

Signal Processing:
a) we might all come quite close to agreeing that the chipset that
does the A/D conversion will be relatively indistinguishable between
CD players - the process is pretty much cut-and-dried these days.
So....
b) we worry about the *ANALOG* end of the signal processing - some use
discrete transistors, some even use tubes. Some have output gain/level
control, some do not. Some give a fixed output at one voltaqe, some at
another.

So:

What it comes down to is the quality of the transport and the means-
and-methods of analog signal processing. I have a 20+ YO Revox using
the Philips transport system. And a 10 YO 200 disc changer Sony using
their system. Both seem reliable based on my thousands+ hours use
each.

The Revox in its day was state-of-the-art. I have a 5 YO Yamaha
changer that was also SOTA in its day.

I would defy you to differentiate between any of the three - at the
speakers - in a blind test - your system but-for the CD player. All I
would ask is that the quite-noisy-between-discs Sony (and all the
rest) be physical-noise-isolated for the purposes of the test.
Further, I would defy you to differentiate between any-of-the-three
above and your Krell or Wadia. For the record.

This is quite a daring statement, by the way, as the Revox is a "very-
first-generation" CD player, pretty much inventing the wheel (paving
the way) for the species and so should be sufficiently different as a
blind squirrel could 'get' it 10:10 times.

Keep in mind that there are three parts to any component:

1. The physical parts required.
2. The box in which they are contained.
3. The controls and options required and included both basic and more-
so.

There comes a point - very, very quickly - with commodity items such
as CD players, comptuters and so forth where the precision and
production-values of the parts involved, ergonomics and build-quality
of the box in which they are contained and more-and-finer control
options are exhausted. Bluntly, if a basic CD player may be obtained
at US$39.99 - there is NO conceivable justification on earth for an
100%-similar-by-function item to cost 250 times-or-more as much.
Ever.

However, there are absolutely no bragging rights with that US$39.99
unit as common-sense simply isn't.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:19:01 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 25, 10:25*am, paperw8 wrote:

i am actually quite inclined to agree with much of what you write.

Look at it another way. My first reply to you was that there is little
difference _AT THE SPEAKERS_ between a basic *decent* CD player and
the high-priced spread. At-issue a

Quality of the transport: This has to do with
a) physical noise while functioning.
b) longevity.
c) reliability.
d) smoothness - as separate from noise - how well does it handle the
disc, open and close.

Signal Processing:
a) we might all come quite close to agreeing that the chipset that
does the A/D conversion will be relatively indistinguishable between
CD players - the process is pretty much cut-and-dried these days.
So....
b) we worry about the *ANALOG* end of the signal processing - some use
discrete transistors, some even use tubes. Some have output gain/level
control, some do not. Some give a fixed output at one voltaqe, some at
another.

So:

What it comes down to is the quality of the transport and the means-
and-methods of analog signal processing. I have a 20+ YO Revox using
the Philips transport system. And a 10 YO 200 disc changer Sony using
their system. Both seem reliable based on my thousands+ hours use
each.

The Revox in its day was state-of-the-art. I have a 5 YO Yamaha
changer that was also SOTA in its day.

I would defy you to differentiate between any of the three - at the
speakers - in a blind test - your system but-for the CD player. All I
would ask is that the quite-noisy-between-discs Sony (and all the
rest) be physical-noise-isolated for the purposes of the test.
Further, I would defy you to differentiate between any-of-the-three
above and your Krell or Wadia. For the record.

This is quite a daring statement, by the way, as the Revox is a "very-
first-generation" CD player, pretty much inventing the wheel (paving
the way) for the species and so should be sufficiently different as a
blind squirrel could 'get' it 10:10 times.

Keep in mind that there are three parts to any component:

1. The physical parts required.
2. The box in which they are contained.
3. The controls and options required and included both basic and more-
so.

There comes a point - very, very quickly - with commodity items such
as CD players, comptuters and so forth where the precision and
production-values of the parts involved, ergonomics and build-quality
of the box in which they are contained and more-and-finer control
options are exhausted. Bluntly, if a basic CD player may be obtained
at US$39.99 - there is NO conceivable justification on earth for an
100%-similar-by-function item to cost 250 times-or-more as much.
Ever.

However, there are absolutely no bragging rights with that US$39.99
unit as common-sense simply isn't.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Have you done a double-blind test between different cost CD players to
determine if your above assertion is correct? If not, it is merely an
assumption on your part. If you have, and heard no difference, then it merely
means that YOU couldn't determine any difference. I recently did a
double-blind level-matched test in which I clearly heard differences between
two CD players (both Sony SACD units). Not only that, but one of them allows
the user to choose two different filtering profiles and they sound different
as well. Granted, the differences are earth shattering like speakers or
microphones (or even phono cartridges), but they are there and as long as
people can hear them they are going to form preferences.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jan 26, 6:16*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:19:01 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):





On Jan 25, 10:25*am, paperw8 wrote:

i am actually quite inclined to agree with much of what you write.

Look at it another way. My first reply to you was that there is little
difference _AT THE SPEAKERS_ between a basic *decent* CD player and
the high-priced spread. At-issue a

Quality of the transport: This has to do with
a) physical noise while functioning.
b) longevity.
c) reliability.
d) smoothness - as separate from noise - how well does it handle the
disc, open and close.

Signal Processing:
a) we might all come quite close to agreeing that the chipset that
does the A/D conversion will be relatively indistinguishable between
CD players - the process is pretty much cut-and-dried these days.
So....
b) we worry about the *ANALOG* end of the signal processing - some use
discrete transistors, some even use tubes. Some have output gain/level
control, some do not. Some give a fixed output at one voltaqe, some at
another.

So:

What it comes down to is the quality of the transport and the means-
and-methods of analog signal processing. I have a 20+ YO Revox using
the Philips transport system. And a 10 YO 200 disc changer Sony using
their system. Both seem reliable based on my thousands+ hours use
each.

The Revox in its day was state-of-the-art. I have a 5 YO Yamaha
changer that was also SOTA in its day.

I would defy you to differentiate between any of the three - at the
speakers - in a blind test - your system but-for the CD player. All I
would ask is that the quite-noisy-between-discs Sony (and all the
rest) be physical-noise-isolated for the purposes of the test.
Further, I would defy you to differentiate between any-of-the-three
above and your Krell or Wadia. For the record.

This is quite a daring statement, by the way, as the Revox is a "very-
first-generation" CD player, pretty much inventing the wheel (paving
the way) for the species and so should be sufficiently different as a
blind squirrel could 'get' it 10:10 times.

Keep in mind that there are three parts to any component:

1. The physical parts required.
2. The box in which they are contained.
3. The controls and options required and included both basic and more-
so.

There comes a point - very, very quickly - with commodity items such
as CD players, comptuters and so forth where the precision and
production-values of the parts involved, ergonomics and build-quality
of the box in which they are contained and more-and-finer control
options are exhausted. Bluntly, if a basic CD player may be obtained
at US$39.99 - there is NO conceivable justification on earth for an
100%-similar-by-function item to cost 250 times-or-more as much.
Ever.

However, there are absolutely no bragging rights with that US$39.99
unit as common-sense simply isn't.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Have you done a double-blind test between different cost CD players to
determine if your above assertion is correct? If not, it is merely an
assumption on your part. If you have, and heard no difference, then it merely
means that YOU couldn't determine any difference. I recently did a
double-blind level-matched test in which I clearly heard differences between
two CD players (both Sony SACD units). Not only that, but one of them allows
the user to choose two different filtering profiles and they sound different
as well. Granted, the differences are earth shattering like speakers or
microphones (or even phono cartridges), but they are there and as long as
people can hear them they are going to form preferences.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure. 'Twas ever thus. But separate the price tag from the actual
results, please.

Point being that there is _NO_ reason on earth why anything should be
250 times better than another of essentially the same thing. My bet is
that the Wadia and any given US$300+ decent-brand CD player will be
essentially indistinguishable. Even to you.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[bob]

On Jan 26, 6:16*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Have you done a double-blind test between different cost CD players to
determine if your above assertion is correct?

Maybe he hasn't, but other people have done plenty of them:
http://snipurl.com/as99z

Bottom line: Except for exotic designs (tubes, non-oversampling DACs),
nobody can tell a difference between CD players. To believe otherwise
is to engage in fantasy.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message



My first reply to you was that
there is little difference _AT THE SPEAKERS_ between a
basic *decent* CD player and the high-priced spread.

Simply not true:

Quality of the transport: This has to do with
a) physical noise while functioning.

In fact even very inexpensive transports have excellent performance these
days. There are a number of documented cases where high-priced CD players
have been found to be using the same transports as boom boxes and mid-fi
players. Fact of the matter is that developing a CD transport is very
expensive and requires high production volume to pay the bills. A lot of
effort has been put into removing the dependence on heavy rigid transport
mechanisms with expensive parts and it is paying off.

b) longevity.

How may good inexpensive players can be purchased for the price of a $3,000+
CD player? Somewhere between 20 and 80, no?

Besides, I have inexpensive CD players that have run steadily and reliably
for a decade or more. I have an original CDP 101 that is now about 23 years
old and still plays well. How long does an inexpensive product have to
last to be a good source of enjoyment?

c) reliability.

As a rule players operate perfectly for a goodly amount of time (several
years) until they start failing. A working strategy is to run the player
until it fails a few times and then simply replace it.

d) smoothness - as separate from noise - how well does it
handle the disc, open and close.

These days, even inexpensive players can do this well.

Signal Processing:
a) we might all come quite close to agreeing that the
chipset that does the A/D conversion will be relatively
indistinguishable between CD players - the process is
pretty much cut-and-dried these days. So....

Agreed.


b) we worry about the *ANALOG* end of the signal
processing - some use discrete transistors, some even use
tubes. Some have output gain/level control, some do not.
Some give a fixed output at one voltage, some at another.

All the player needs to do is provide an output that is in the normal range
and the associated equipment can easily make up the difference. Gain and
level controls are better if they are more centralized for a number of
practical and theoretical reasons.

One of the best analog buffer chips ever made, the NE5532 costs less than $1
in single units, even less in production quantities. Being cheap is no
barrier to high performance in this area.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:59:16 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 26, 6:16*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:19:01 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):





On Jan 25, 10:25*am, paperw8 wrote:

i am actually quite inclined to agree with much of what you write.

Look at it another way. My first reply to you was that there is little
difference _AT THE SPEAKERS_ between a basic *decent* CD player and
the high-priced spread. At-issue a

Quality of the transport: This has to do with
a) physical noise while functioning.
b) longevity.
c) reliability.
d) smoothness - as separate from noise - how well does it handle the
disc, open and close.

Signal Processing:
a) we might all come quite close to agreeing that the chipset that
does the A/D conversion will be relatively indistinguishable between
CD players - the process is pretty much cut-and-dried these days.
So....
b) we worry about the *ANALOG* end of the signal processing - some use
discrete transistors, some even use tubes. Some have output gain/level
control, some do not. Some give a fixed output at one voltaqe, some at
another.

So:

What it comes down to is the quality of the transport and the means-
and-methods of analog signal processing. I have a 20+ YO Revox using
the Philips transport system. And a 10 YO 200 disc changer Sony using
their system. Both seem reliable based on my thousands+ hours use
each.

The Revox in its day was state-of-the-art. I have a 5 YO Yamaha
changer that was also SOTA in its day.

I would defy you to differentiate between any of the three - at the
speakers - in a blind test - your system but-for the CD player. All I
would ask is that the quite-noisy-between-discs Sony (and all the
rest) be physical-noise-isolated for the purposes of the test.
Further, I would defy you to differentiate between any-of-the-three
above and your Krell or Wadia. For the record.

This is quite a daring statement, by the way, as the Revox is a "very-
first-generation" CD player, pretty much inventing the wheel (paving
the way) for the species and so should be sufficiently different as a
blind squirrel could 'get' it 10:10 times.

Keep in mind that there are three parts to any component:

1. The physical parts required.
2. The box in which they are contained.
3. The controls and options required and included both basic and more-
so.

There comes a point - very, very quickly - with commodity items such
as CD players, comptuters and so forth where the precision and
production-values of the parts involved, ergonomics and build-quality
of the box in which they are contained and more-and-finer control
options are exhausted. Bluntly, if a basic CD player may be obtained
at US$39.99 - there is NO conceivable justification on earth for an
100%-similar-by-function item to cost 250 times-or-more as much.
Ever.

However, there are absolutely no bragging rights with that US$39.99
unit as common-sense simply isn't.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Have you done a double-blind test between different cost CD players to
determine if your above assertion is correct? If not, it is merely an
assumption on your part. If you have, and heard no difference, then it
merely
means that YOU couldn't determine any difference. I recently did a
double-blind level-matched test in which I clearly heard differences between
two CD players (both Sony SACD units). Not only that, but one of them allows
the user to choose two different filtering profiles and they sound different
as well. Granted, the differences are earth shattering like speakers or
microphones (or even phono cartridges), but they are there and as long as
people can hear them they are going to form preferences.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure. 'Twas ever thus. But separate the price tag from the actual
results, please.

That I cannot do because nobody seems to have a body of information that
absolutely associates price with performance (or even sound). That's the
deviling thing about Hi-End audio. People ASSUME that the higher the price,
the better the performance (we're talking electronics, here), but its
certainly not a proven axiom.

Point being that there is _NO_ reason on earth why anything should be
250 times better than another of essentially the same thing.

The actual truth of the matter is that over such a price spread, IF there is
any actual improvement going on, it's a steep curve of diminishing returns.
I.E., there is no way that cost is any linear indicator of performance (Build
quality, yes). I.E. a $10,000 player might cost 250X that of a $40 player,
but it certainly isn't going to sound 250X better. In fact, I doubt is would
sound 10X better or even 5X. It will sound different (which is more than I
can say for a pair $4000 Nordost Valhalla interconnects vs a $10 pair of
Radio Shack connectors), but will everybody say that this "different" is
actually "better"?

My bet is
that the Wadia and any given US$300+ decent-brand CD player will be
essentially indistinguishable. Even to you.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:41:21 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 26, 6:16*pm, Sonnova wrote:

Have you done a double-blind test between different cost CD players to
determine if your above assertion is correct?

Maybe he hasn't, but other people have done plenty of them:
http://snipurl.com/as99z

Bottom line: Except for exotic designs (tubes, non-oversampling DACs),
nobody can tell a difference between CD players. To believe otherwise
is to engage in fantasy.

bob

I can tell the difference. In double-blind tests with levels equalized using
a digital AVM to 2 decimal places.

[bob]

On Jan 27, 6:31*pm, Sonnova wrote:

I can tell the difference. In double-blind tests with levels equalized using
a digital AVM to 2 decimal places.

Then you're either doing it wrong or you're a freak of nature, because
no one's ever demonstrated the ability to do this consistently in
front of an impartial witness.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Jan 27, 6:31 pm, Sonnova
wrote:

I can tell the difference. In double-blind tests with
levels equalized using a digital AVM to 2 decimal places.

Then you're either doing it wrong or you're a freak of
nature, because no one's ever demonstrated the ability to
do this consistently in front of an impartial witness.

Also possible - one or both of the pieces of equipment are essentially
broken.

I have a *magical* Sony CD player that will probably impress some
audiophiles with its "Tight, fast, bass". There's no doubt that they'll pick
it out in the best-run DBT. It "captures so much detail from CDs that it
can even be used to hear differences between preamps and integrated amps".

On the test bench this *magical* CD player's output coupling capacitors
lost much of their capacitance, and then stabilized. If you use it with a SS
preamp or integrated amp with a relatively low input impedance, it will be
rolling off a lot of bass for that "tight, fast bass" that some audiophiles
prize. In a system undersized woofers driven hard, it will even clean up
their low end by protecting them from being overdriven below their effective
range. With a preamp or integrated amp with a high input impedance, the
roll-off in the bass will be pushed far lower, and therefore have a
completely different sound. With a preamp or amp that has a low input
impedance, the rolled off bass will probably even sound a little harsh.

When this *magical* CD player was part of my system, I only used the digital
out.

I know very, very few audiophiles that thoroughly bench test the equipment
they do listening tests on, both before and after the test. Most of them
don't even own a voltmeter.

[bob]

On Jan 28, 9:08*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message



On Jan 27, 6:31 pm, Sonnova
wrote:

I can tell the difference. In double-blind tests with
levels equalized using a digital AVM to 2 decimal places.
Then you're either doing it wrong or you're a freak of
nature, because no one's ever demonstrated the ability to
do this consistently in front of an impartial witness.

Also possible - one or both of the pieces of equipment are essentially
broken.

Yes, if he'd claimed that he'd done this once. But his claim is that
he CAN tell the difference, as a general proposition. It is the
equivalent of going on a running forum and claiming you can run a
three-minute mile.

bob