I've done a thorough Deja search and still haven't found exactly what I'm
looking for. I'm frustrated (or elated) that Eclipse's CD8053 player is
mentioned in the same sentence as Sony's CDX-C90, Nak's CD-700, and Denon's
DCT-Z1 in terms of SQ. I presently own the C90 and I'm quite happy with the
sound, but it has a crappy display and is difficult to navigate through its
menus. I used to own the CD-700 and was REALLY impressed with the sound and
ease of use but got quicly bored with it (and tired of the skipping). What
I want to know is if the 8053 is REALLY on par with these other units. I've
listened to it at my local retailer, but it's really impossible to compare
with what I have & have had without some controlled tests, which is
virtually impossible. I'm in love with the 8053's features and good looks,
but I'm not willing to fork out the money only to find I'm disappointed in
the SQ dept. after I've had it to listen to a while in my car. It's
certainly a LOT cheaper than the others, which might be an indicator...I
could go on and on. Help???

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

Will you be using it to power speakers, or are you just using amplifiers?

--
Mark
remove "remove" and "spam" to reply

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
I've done a thorough Deja search and still haven't found exactly what I'm
looking for. I'm frustrated (or elated) that Eclipse's CD8053 player is
mentioned in the same sentence as Sony's CDX-C90, Nak's CD-700, and
Denon's
DCT-Z1 in terms of SQ. I presently own the C90 and I'm quite happy with
the
sound, but it has a crappy display and is difficult to navigate through
its
menus. I used to own the CD-700 and was REALLY impressed with the sound
and
ease of use but got quicly bored with it (and tired of the skipping).
What
I want to know is if the 8053 is REALLY on par with these other units.
I've
listened to it at my local retailer, but it's really impossible to compare
with what I have & have had without some controlled tests, which is
virtually impossible. I'm in love with the 8053's features and good
looks,
but I'm not willing to fork out the money only to find I'm disappointed in
the SQ dept. after I've had it to listen to a while in my car. It's
certainly a LOT cheaper than the others, which might be an indicator...I
could go on and on. Help???

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or,
that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we
wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

Will you be using it to power speakers, or are you just using amplifiers?

Strictly amplifiers.

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Will you be using it to power speakers, or are you just using amplifiers?

--
Mark
remove "remove" and "spam" to reply

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
I've done a thorough Deja search and still haven't found exactly what
I'm
looking for. I'm frustrated (or elated) that Eclipse's CD8053 player is
mentioned in the same sentence as Sony's CDX-C90, Nak's CD-700, and
Denon's
DCT-Z1 in terms of SQ. I presently own the C90 and I'm quite happy with
the
sound, but it has a crappy display and is difficult to navigate through
its
menus. I used to own the CD-700 and was REALLY impressed with the sound
and
ease of use but got quicly bored with it (and tired of the skipping).
What
I want to know is if the 8053 is REALLY on par with these other units.
I've
listened to it at my local retailer, but it's really impossible to
compare
with what I have & have had without some controlled tests, which is
virtually impossible. I'm in love with the 8053's features and good
looks,
but I'm not willing to fork out the money only to find I'm disappointed
in
the SQ dept. after I've had it to listen to a while in my car. It's
certainly a LOT cheaper than the others, which might be an indicator...I
could go on and on. Help???

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or,
that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we
wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

Then you're not going to be able to tell a difference between the two in
terms of "SQ"

--
Mark
remove "remove" and "spam" to reply

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
Will you be using it to power speakers, or are you just using amplifiers?

Strictly amplifiers.

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or,
that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we
wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Will you be using it to power speakers, or are you just using
amplifiers?

--
Mark
remove "remove" and "spam" to reply

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
I've done a thorough Deja search and still haven't found exactly what
I'm
looking for. I'm frustrated (or elated) that Eclipse's CD8053 player
is
mentioned in the same sentence as Sony's CDX-C90, Nak's CD-700, and
Denon's
DCT-Z1 in terms of SQ. I presently own the C90 and I'm quite happy
with
the
sound, but it has a crappy display and is difficult to navigate
through
its
menus. I used to own the CD-700 and was REALLY impressed with the
sound
and
ease of use but got quicly bored with it (and tired of the skipping).
What
I want to know is if the 8053 is REALLY on par with these other units.
I've
listened to it at my local retailer, but it's really impossible to
compare
with what I have & have had without some controlled tests, which is
virtually impossible. I'm in love with the 8053's features and good
looks,
but I'm not willing to fork out the money only to find I'm
disappointed
in
the SQ dept. after I've had it to listen to a while in my car. It's
certainly a LOT cheaper than the others, which might be an
indicator...I
could go on and on. Help???

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or,
that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we
wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others.

Name some.

"MZ" wrote in message
news
Then you're not going to be able to tell a difference between the two in
terms of "SQ"

--
Mark

I haven't looked at the units discussed but if one has an equalizer I'd get
that. This way you can balance the sound quality at certain frequencies.

Sound quality depends on the signal that goes to the amplifier (assuming you
have a good quality amplifier). Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others. The SPL depends on the amplifier.

--Viktor

Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others.

Name some.

Who were you replying to here, Mark? I didn't see any posts with "Some
units provide a cleaner preamp output than others". Just your reply with
the quote.

Tony




--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others.

Name some.

The 8053 has 8 volt unbalanced outputs (just like my 8043) and it makes a big
difference. It's also compatible with Eclipse's 37601 Balanced Line Adpater
that gives you 16 volt balanced outputs. The sound quality is fantastic, the
deck is extremely flexible, it looks nice and has a great user interface (that
I prefer 1000% over Alpine's). I've compared my 8443 and the 8053 to the CD45z,
Pioneer P9, Alpine 9815 and F#1 status, Blaupunkt's San Francisco CD72 and
several others and liked it the best. I think the Eclipse's I looked at
provided the best sound quality, but that may have partly been due to the high
level outputs, which allowed the gains on the amp to come down. Eclipse also
makes an *awesome* amp, and if you compare the specs on paper, they'll match or
beat *anything* else (at least anything I've ever looked at, including Zapco
Competition, ARC, BRAX, etc...) in terms of THD% etc...

Mark Zarella wrote: "Then you're not going to be able to tell a difference
between the two in terms of "SQ"

Would you please educate me as to why this is possible? I've heard distinct
differences in several of the HUs I've owned...to name a few:

Alpine CDA-7939
Eclipse 5303R
Nakamichi CD-700
Sony CDX C90

Each HU I owned for a sufficient time period to become fairly intimate with
it's sonic qualities. Each one was considered their flagship model at the
time. I was a huge fan of the Alpine for the longest time. My local
retailer kept telling me I'd be blown away by the Eclipse but I never
believed him considering the Eclipse's MSRP was $200 less. However, I
finally tried the Eclipse and WOW, the difference was amazing. The Eclipse
was more natural sounding (the Alpine was "tinny" in comparison), smoother
vocals, much better channel separation (not sure if I'm using the correct
teminology, but the speakers sounded farther apart and more spacious) and
the biggest difference was the ability to pick out individual instruments
accross the soundstage. I could "see" the guitar here, the cymbals there,
etc. The Alpine seemed to mush everything together in comparison.

I had the Eclipse for quite some time...at least a year or two? Anyway, I
decided to try Dynaudio (I had been running Diamond Audio previously).
Needless to say the Dyns were a world apart from the Diamonds. However, the
Dyns were so revealing that I began to hear flaws and suspected the Eclipse
was now the "weak link". I switched to the Nak. HUGE difference.
Incredibly mellow but somehow so much more powerful, if that makes sense.
Absolutely incredibly smooth vocals and just downright bone chilling. The
Nak was definitely a good combo with the Dyns.

Then I purchased my Maxima and kept the stock Bose stereo for a while
thinking I didn't "need" an awesome stereo & sold the Nak. After a few
months I realized the error of my ways, gutted the Bose and put everything
back in the car minus the Nak and bought the used Sony. It's hard to say
what differences there may have been between the Sony and the Nak because
there were a few months between the switch. However, the Sony is definitely
on par with the Nak, but in a different way. I think the Nak had a stronger
presence whereas the Sony has a lighter "airy" feel...but both very nice.

Anyway, sorry about my lack of knowledge for the correct terminology.

Now don't go telling me that all CD players sound the same like amps!! What
you're telling me is that a considerably less expensive player like the 8053
sounds just as good as C90 or the CD-700? Because that would be the only
inference here, and quite frankly, I'm pessimistic. But I trust your
advice, Mark, and I put a lot of stock in what you have to say. I will tell
you know that if I go out and buy the 8053 and I'm not happy, then you'll
get an earful!!!!! :-)

Tony





--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"MZ" wrote in message
news
Then you're not going to be able to tell a difference between the two in
terms of "SQ"

--
Mark
remove "remove" and "spam" to reply

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
Will you be using it to power speakers, or are you just using
amplifiers?

Strictly amplifiers.

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or,
that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we
wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Will you be using it to power speakers, or are you just using
amplifiers?

--
Mark
remove "remove" and "spam" to reply

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
I've done a thorough Deja search and still haven't found exactly
what
I'm
looking for. I'm frustrated (or elated) that Eclipse's CD8053
player
is
mentioned in the same sentence as Sony's CDX-C90, Nak's CD-700, and
Denon's
DCT-Z1 in terms of SQ. I presently own the C90 and I'm quite happy
with
the
sound, but it has a crappy display and is difficult to navigate
through
its
menus. I used to own the CD-700 and was REALLY impressed with the
sound
and
ease of use but got quicly bored with it (and tired of the
skipping).
What
I want to know is if the 8053 is REALLY on par with these other
units.
I've
listened to it at my local retailer, but it's really impossible to
compare
with what I have & have had without some controlled tests, which is
virtually impossible. I'm in love with the 8053's features and good
looks,
but I'm not willing to fork out the money only to find I'm
disappointed
in
the SQ dept. after I've had it to listen to a while in my car. It's
certainly a LOT cheaper than the others, which might be an
indicator...I
could go on and on. Help???

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence?
Or,
that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we
wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others.

Name some.

Who were you replying to here, Mark? I didn't see any posts with "Some
units provide a cleaner preamp output than others". Just your reply with
the quote.

Tony

Nevermind!! Your reply came accross before electricked's post did.

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others.

Name some.

Who were you replying to here, Mark? I didn't see any posts with "Some
units provide a cleaner preamp output than others". Just your reply with
the quote.

Tony




--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or,
that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we
wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others.

Name some.

Elitricked wrote: "I haven't looked at the units discussed but if one has an
equalizer I'd get that. This way you can balance the sound quality at
certain frequencies.

Sound quality depends on the signal that goes to the amplifier (assuming you
have a good quality amplifier). Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others. The SPL depends on the amplifier."

Well, if it helps, I have a 30-band EQ that provides more than enough
tweaking power than I currently know what to do with.

I have Phoenix Gold ZX and ZXti amplifiers. Coudn't be happier with them.

Tony



--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"electricked" no_emails_please wrote in message
...

"MZ" wrote in message
news
Then you're not going to be able to tell a difference between the two in
terms of "SQ"

--
Mark

I haven't looked at the units discussed but if one has an equalizer I'd
get
that. This way you can balance the sound quality at certain frequencies.

Sound quality depends on the signal that goes to the amplifier (assuming
you
have a good quality amplifier). Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others. The SPL depends on the amplifier.

--Viktor

What
you're telling me is that a considerably less expensive player like the 8053
sounds just as good as C90 or the CD-700?

I compared the CD8443 and 8053 to several much more expensive decks before
purchasing the Eclipse. I can tell you that there was only a slight difference
in sound quality between the Eclipse and the others, and this was mostly result
of lower gain settings at the amp because of the Eclipse's 8 volt outputs. I've
had the chance to hear the CD45z, Alpine's 9815 and F#1, and Pioneer's P9 in
action and the only differences I could hear all came from higher gain settings
at the amp. I've got my CD8443 paired to a Zapco amp and a Dynaudio System 240
MKII and it sounds amazing.

I have Phoenix Gold ZX and ZXti amplifiers. Coudn't be happier with them.


Those are the competition amps, right? I've heard the Titanium Elite amps in
action and they rocked.

"The 8053 has 8 volt unbalanced outputs (just like my 8043) and it makes a
big difference."

Well, I've never needed more than 8V. And unless I'm mistaken, output
voltage has nothing to do with SQ, only noise rejection.


"The sound quality is fantastic, the deck is extremely flexible, it looks
nice and has a great user interface (that I prefer 1000% over Alpine's)."

Yes, it sure is a good looking deck!

"I've compared my 8443 and the 8053 to the CD45z, Pioneer P9, Alpine 9815
and F#1 status, Blaupunkt's San Francisco CD72 and several others and liked
it the best. I think the Eclipse's I looked at provided the best sound
quality, but that may have partly been due to the high level outputs, which
allowed the gains on the amp to come down."

Thanks for the comparisons, this is helpful. I'm still not to sure if
output voltage has anything to do with SQ per se, only system noise...which
I've never had a problem with. So the 8V feature is not really a selling
point for me, although it doesn't hurt! Since my EQ has adjustable gain and
output, it acts as a preamp, and since my speakers are tri-amped & totally
active, my amps gains are turned down almost all the way as it is and it
gets LOUD with zero noise.

Tony




What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"Steve Grauman" wrote in message
...
The 8053 has 8 volt unbalanced outputs (just like my 8043) and it makes a
big
difference. It's also compatible with Eclipse's 37601 Balanced Line
Adpater
that gives you 16 volt balanced outputs. The sound quality is fantastic,
the
deck is extremely flexible, it looks nice and has a great user interface
(that
I prefer 1000% over Alpine's). I've compared my 8443 and the 8053 to the
CD45z,
Pioneer P9, Alpine 9815 and F#1 status, Blaupunkt's San Francisco CD72 and
several others and liked it the best. I think the Eclipse's I looked at
provided the best sound quality, but that may have partly been due to the
high
level outputs, which allowed the gains on the amp to come down. Eclipse
also
makes an *awesome* amp, and if you compare the specs on paper, they'll
match or
beat *anything* else (at least anything I've ever looked at, including
Zapco
Competition, ARC, BRAX, etc...) in terms of THD% etc...

Those are the competition amps, right? I've heard the Titanium Elite amps
in
action and they rocked.

I don't think there are any differences other than cosmetic between the
original ZX amps, the ZXti amps, and the new Titanium amps. I do believe
the ZXti and Titanium amps did add some extra output and crossover options
versus the ZX series, making them more flexible, but the sonic qualities are
the same. My older ZX amps did have one flaw, though. The RCA input
connectors came loose after awhile and you have to be careful when twisting
and pulling the cable off becuase the connector would come right off with
it. All you had to do was slide it back on, though. The newer amps fixed
this problem.

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"Steve Grauman" wrote in message
...
I have Phoenix Gold ZX and ZXti amplifiers. Coudn't be happier with
them.


Those are the competition amps, right? I've heard the Titanium Elite amps
in
action and they rocked.

The 8053 has 8 volt unbalanced outputs (just like my 8043) and it makes a
big
difference. It's also compatible with Eclipse's 37601 Balanced Line
Adpater
that gives you 16 volt balanced outputs. The sound quality is fantastic,
the
deck is extremely flexible, it looks nice and has a great user interface
(that
I prefer 1000% over Alpine's). I've compared my 8443 and the 8053 to the
CD45z,
Pioneer P9, Alpine 9815 and F#1 status, Blaupunkt's San Francisco CD72 and
several others and liked it the best. I think the Eclipse's I looked at
provided the best sound quality, but that may have partly been due to the
high
level outputs, which allowed the gains on the amp to come down.

What does the position of the amplifier gain control have to do with the
sound quality?

Mark Zarella wrote: "Then you're not going to be able to tell a difference
between the two in terms of "SQ"

Would you please educate me as to why this is possible?

Well, when you put them both on a scope, you'll find essentially no
distortion. So where would you suppose the difference in sound would come
from?

I've heard distinct
differences in several of the HUs I've owned...to name a few:

Alpine CDA-7939
Eclipse 5303R
Nakamichi CD-700
Sony CDX C90

I have no explanation for your experiences. I'd suggest the testing
strategy, the configuration of the setup, or something being wrong with the
unit. Sorry.

Mark,
I'd suggest that the differences Tony was hearing were the same ones I heard
when I went from a C90 to a CD700 (after also going through the Denon '950r
and 1000r, and a Sony C910). The C90 was one of the cleanest sounding heads
I had ever owned but, like Tony, I didn't like the display as it was
unreadable here in the bright Florida sun. And, through my Dynaudio System
340 and a/d/s/ amps, it sounded very nice. However, when I swapped the C90
head out for the Nak (and level matched as closely as I could), there was an
immediate, audible difference in the sound quality. It's hard to describe
the difference (smoother, less fatiguing, more accurate?) but it was there
from the minute I put in one or two of my "reference" CD's. I'm sure you
have your favorite pieces of music that you can put into a new system you
are auditioning that will tell you in seconds what's right or wrong with the
setup.

The Nak met and exceeded my expectations immediately. Like Tony, I too had
the occasional problem with skipping and that it had a problem reading one
type of CD-R too but I LOVE the deck still. I'm now getting ready to swap
out my '700 for a Pioneer '7500 DVD head because I want to get a nav unit
and I want to be able to use my DVD-A's as well. I expect to be able to tell
immediately whether I made a big kilobuck mistake or not. Of course, all I
have to do to screw up this comparison would be to mismatch the level of
this newer, higher-output head unit by a fraction of a dB (or two) and I
might get fooled. However, (and I'm finally coming to the point)....if the
quality of the D-to-A conversion is poor on the Pioneer, then the Nak wins,
IMHO. I think that this is probably the "purest" test of a change in heads
because (if you can level-match the two heads you're comparing), then the
quality of the D-to-A chips (along with the quality of the output circuits)
should be there is to make an audible difference. A poorly designed and
implemented output stage will totally screw up ANYTHING that is happening
"upstream" in the audio chain.

dave


"MZ" wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella wrote: "Then you're not going to be able to tell a
difference
between the two in terms of "SQ"

Would you please educate me as to why this is possible?

Well, when you put them both on a scope, you'll find essentially no
distortion. So where would you suppose the difference in sound would come
from?

I've heard distinct
differences in several of the HUs I've owned...to name a few:

Alpine CDA-7939
Eclipse 5303R
Nakamichi CD-700
Sony CDX C90

I have no explanation for your experiences. I'd suggest the testing
strategy, the configuration of the setup, or something being wrong with
the
unit. Sorry.

"electricked" no_emails_please wrote in message
...

I think a lot of people have trouble with properly setting equalizers.
It's
hard to do a good tune up without having an oscillioscope (sp?) or better
yet there are special frequency analyzers out there specifically fitted
for
tunning in an audio system.

I do not think you require either one of those to effectively use an EQ.
There is no black magic involved with tweaking an EQ, you can adjust it
until it sounds good. That is the goal after all.

Les

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
Elitricked wrote: "I haven't looked at the units discussed but if one has
an
equalizer I'd get that. This way you can balance the sound quality at
certain frequencies.

Sound quality depends on the signal that goes to the amplifier (assuming
you
have a good quality amplifier). Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others. The SPL depends on the amplifier."

Well, if it helps, I have a 30-band EQ that provides more than enough
tweaking power than I currently know what to do with.

I have Phoenix Gold ZX and ZXti amplifiers. Coudn't be happier with them.

Tony

I think a lot of people have trouble with properly setting equalizers. It's
hard to do a good tune up without having an oscillioscope (sp?) or better
yet there are special frequency analyzers out there specifically fitted for
tunning in an audio system. With that thing you can watch the sound level at
each frequency and adjust the frequency level accordingly. But you are
right, 30-band is an overkill unless you are into competition. Even then
it's usually too much if your system is made of good quality audio
components that match specifications.

--Viktor

"Les" wrote in message
m...

"electricked" no_emails_please wrote in message
...

I think a lot of people have trouble with properly setting equalizers.
It's
hard to do a good tune up without having an oscillioscope (sp?) or
better
yet there are special frequency analyzers out there specifically fitted
for
tunning in an audio system.

I do not think you require either one of those to effectively use an EQ.
There is no black magic involved with tweaking an EQ, you can adjust it
until it sounds good. That is the goal after all.

Les

In practice, no. For competition purposes, you have to fine tune it so
actually need one of those.

--Viktor

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 07:34:34 -0800, "Tony Fernandes"
wrote:

I've done a thorough Deja search and still haven't found exactly what I'm
looking for. I'm frustrated (or elated) that Eclipse's CD8053 player is
mentioned in the same sentence as Sony's CDX-C90, Nak's CD-700, and Denon's
DCT-Z1 in terms of SQ. I presently own the C90 and I'm quite happy with the
sound, but it has a crappy display and is difficult to navigate through its
menus. I used to own the CD-700 and was REALLY impressed with the sound and
ease of use but got quicly bored with it (and tired of the skipping). What
I want to know is if the 8053 is REALLY on par with these other units. I've
listened to it at my local retailer, but it's really impossible to compare
with what I have & have had without some controlled tests, which is
virtually impossible. I'm in love with the 8053's features and good looks,
but I'm not willing to fork out the money only to find I'm disappointed in
the SQ dept. after I've had it to listen to a while in my car. It's
certainly a LOT cheaper than the others, which might be an indicator...I
could go on and on. Help???

Tony

Tony I gotta throw one more headunit into the mix just cus it's such a
good deal right now...

Rockford Fosgate RFX8250 that was made by Denon for them. Basically
the same as a Denon DCT-A1 with modifications to work with Rockfords
balanced line cables. They are available on Sound Domain for $299....


Stephen Narayan | | IASCA Certified Judge
http://www.teamrocs.com | Home of the original RAC Bada$$es
Denon DCT-1000R & Rockford RFX8250
PPI DEQ230/FRX456 EQ/x-over | Orion NT-300 BIQ EQ/preamp | NT-200 BIX x-over
Four Phase Linear Euro.6s kW Slave amps and 4.8 kW Power Supply unit
Focal TN46 tweeters & 6K1 mids | 2 Aliante 8" midwoofers
Phase Linear Euro HC 15's

Pioneer DEX-P9

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Some units provide a cleaner preamp output
than others.

Name some.

Electricked wrote: "I think a lot of people have trouble with properly
setting equalizers. It's hard to do a good tune up without having an
oscillioscope (sp?) or betteryet there are special frequency analyzers out
there specifically fitted for tunning in an audio system. With that thing
you can watch the sound level at
each frequency and adjust the frequency level accordingly. But you are
right, 30-band is an overkill unless you are into competition. Even then
it's usually too much if your system is made of good quality audio
components that match specifications."

Well, when I adjust mine, I use a homemade patchcord that allows me to bring
the EQ from my trunk, where it's mounted, and put it in my lap. I basically
tune it by ear. Once I start messing around with RTAs and the like, then I
start second-guessing myself about what really sounds good vs. what's
"supposed" to sound good. When it comes down to it, the only thing that
matters is what sounds good by ear...MY ear! Problem is, with 30 bands per
channel, there's too many variables. It usually takes me several months to
get it right, and even then I'm tweaking it a little here and a little
there!

Tony



--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"electricked" no_emails_please wrote in message
...
"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
Elitricked wrote: "I haven't looked at the units discussed but if one
has
an
equalizer I'd get that. This way you can balance the sound quality at
certain frequencies.

Sound quality depends on the signal that goes to the amplifier (assuming
you
have a good quality amplifier). Some units provide a cleaner preamp
output
than others. The SPL depends on the amplifier."

Well, if it helps, I have a 30-band EQ that provides more than enough
tweaking power than I currently know what to do with.

I have Phoenix Gold ZX and ZXti amplifiers. Coudn't be happier with
them.

Tony

I think a lot of people have trouble with properly setting equalizers.
It's
hard to do a good tune up without having an oscillioscope (sp?) or better
yet there are special frequency analyzers out there specifically fitted
for
tunning in an audio system. With that thing you can watch the sound level
at
each frequency and adjust the frequency level accordingly. But you are
right, 30-band is an overkill unless you are into competition. Even then
it's usually too much if your system is made of good quality audio
components that match specifications.

--Viktor

Stephen Narayan wrote: "Tony I gotta throw one more headunit into the mix
just cus it's such a good deal right now...

Rockford Fosgate RFX8250 that was made by Denon for them. Basically
the same as a Denon DCT-A1 with modifications to work with Rockfords
balanced line cables. They are available on Sound Domain for $299...."

Yes, I've been hearing good things about those decks. Don't get me wrong, I
realize there are several other good head units available out there, I was
just merely listing the ones I've owned (at least the ones worthy of
mentioning).

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"Stephen Narayan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 07:34:34 -0800, "Tony Fernandes"
wrote:

I've done a thorough Deja search and still haven't found exactly what I'm
looking for. I'm frustrated (or elated) that Eclipse's CD8053 player is
mentioned in the same sentence as Sony's CDX-C90, Nak's CD-700, and
Denon's
DCT-Z1 in terms of SQ. I presently own the C90 and I'm quite happy with
the
sound, but it has a crappy display and is difficult to navigate through
its
menus. I used to own the CD-700 and was REALLY impressed with the sound
and
ease of use but got quicly bored with it (and tired of the skipping).
What
I want to know is if the 8053 is REALLY on par with these other units.
I've
listened to it at my local retailer, but it's really impossible to
compare
with what I have & have had without some controlled tests, which is
virtually impossible. I'm in love with the 8053's features and good
looks,
but I'm not willing to fork out the money only to find I'm disappointed
in
the SQ dept. after I've had it to listen to a while in my car. It's
certainly a LOT cheaper than the others, which might be an indicator...I
could go on and on. Help???

Tony

Tony I gotta throw one more headunit into the mix just cus it's such a
good deal right now...

Rockford Fosgate RFX8250 that was made by Denon for them. Basically
the same as a Denon DCT-A1 with modifications to work with Rockfords
balanced line cables. They are available on Sound Domain for $299....


Stephen Narayan | | IASCA Certified Judge
http://www.teamrocs.com | Home of the original RAC Bada$$es
Denon DCT-1000R & Rockford RFX8250
PPI DEQ230/FRX456 EQ/x-over | Orion NT-300 BIQ EQ/preamp | NT-200 BIX
x-over
Four Phase Linear Euro.6s kW Slave amps and 4.8 kW Power Supply unit
Focal TN46 tweeters & 6K1 mids | 2 Aliante 8" midwoofers
Phase Linear Euro HC 15's

"Well, when you put them both on a scope, you'll find essentially no
distortion. So where would you suppose the difference in sound would come
from?"

So what you're telling me is that the only SQ-limiting factor as far as head
units are considered is distortion?


"I have no explanation for your experiences. I'd suggest the testing
strategy, the configuration of the setup, or something being wrong with the
unit. Sorry. "

Well, the testing procedure went something like this. I'd owned each unit
long enough to become very familiar with their sonic qualities (if they
existed in the first place). Usually at least a year. I'd buy a new
player. In with the new, out with the old. I'd set my gains if necessary
and that's it!! The differences would be evident fairly quickly. Usually
with the first song I'd listen to and more and more as I listened to other
songs I was intimately familiar with.

I don't have any evidence to believe anything was wrong with the units, so
I'll rule that out.

Tony




--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella wrote: "Then you're not going to be able to tell a
difference
between the two in terms of "SQ"

Would you please educate me as to why this is possible?

Well, when you put them both on a scope, you'll find essentially no
distortion. So where would you suppose the difference in sound would come
from?

I've heard distinct
differences in several of the HUs I've owned...to name a few:

Alpine CDA-7939
Eclipse 5303R
Nakamichi CD-700
Sony CDX C90

I have no explanation for your experiences. I'd suggest the testing
strategy, the configuration of the setup, or something being wrong with
the
unit. Sorry.

Pioneer DEX-P9

So what makes it cleaner? Disinfectant?

Well, when I adjust mine, I use a homemade patchcord that allows me to
bring
the EQ from my trunk, where it's mounted, and put it in my lap. I
basically
tune it by ear. Once I start messing around with RTAs and the like, then
I
start second-guessing myself about what really sounds good vs. what's
"supposed" to sound good. When it comes down to it, the only thing that
matters is what sounds good by ear...MY ear! Problem is, with 30 bands
per
channel, there's too many variables. It usually takes me several months
to
get it right, and even then I'm tweaking it a little here and a little
there!

Well said.

EQ good. RTA bad.

Dave, I actually currently have both in my closet (well, actually the Nak is
a CD45z). I did a blind switched level-matched comparison a couple years
ago between several head units, and found no difference. Was your test
blind, level-matched, and a/b?

It's impossible to improve on perfection. All HU preamps these days are
essentially perfect. That is, they don't have distortion components that
are significant. Put a Jensen HU on a scope and you'll see what I mean.

--
Mark
remove "remove" and "spam" to reply

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mark,
I'd suggest that the differences Tony was hearing were the same ones I
heard
when I went from a C90 to a CD700 (after also going through the Denon
'950r
and 1000r, and a Sony C910). The C90 was one of the cleanest sounding
heads
I had ever owned but, like Tony, I didn't like the display as it was
unreadable here in the bright Florida sun. And, through my Dynaudio System
340 and a/d/s/ amps, it sounded very nice. However, when I swapped the C90
head out for the Nak (and level matched as closely as I could), there was
an
immediate, audible difference in the sound quality. It's hard to describe
the difference (smoother, less fatiguing, more accurate?) but it was there
from the minute I put in one or two of my "reference" CD's. I'm sure you
have your favorite pieces of music that you can put into a new system you
are auditioning that will tell you in seconds what's right or wrong with
the
setup.

The Nak met and exceeded my expectations immediately. Like Tony, I too had
the occasional problem with skipping and that it had a problem reading one
type of CD-R too but I LOVE the deck still. I'm now getting ready to swap
out my '700 for a Pioneer '7500 DVD head because I want to get a nav unit
and I want to be able to use my DVD-A's as well. I expect to be able to
tell
immediately whether I made a big kilobuck mistake or not. Of course, all I

have to do to screw up this comparison would be to mismatch the level of
this newer, higher-output head unit by a fraction of a dB (or two) and I
might get fooled. However, (and I'm finally coming to the point)....if the
quality of the D-to-A conversion is poor on the Pioneer, then the Nak
wins,
IMHO. I think that this is probably the "purest" test of a change in heads
because (if you can level-match the two heads you're comparing), then the
quality of the D-to-A chips (along with the quality of the output
circuits)
should be there is to make an audible difference. A poorly designed and
implemented output stage will totally screw up ANYTHING that is happening
"upstream" in the audio chain.

dave


"MZ" wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella wrote: "Then you're not going to be able to tell a
difference
between the two in terms of "SQ"

Would you please educate me as to why this is possible?

Well, when you put them both on a scope, you'll find essentially no
distortion. So where would you suppose the difference in sound would
come
from?

I've heard distinct
differences in several of the HUs I've owned...to name a few:

Alpine CDA-7939
Eclipse 5303R
Nakamichi CD-700
Sony CDX C90

I have no explanation for your experiences. I'd suggest the testing
strategy, the configuration of the setup, or something being wrong with
the
unit. Sorry.

"Well, when you put them both on a scope, you'll find essentially no
distortion. So where would you suppose the difference in sound would come
from?"

So what you're telling me is that the only SQ-limiting factor as far as
head
units are considered is distortion?

And noise. If a signal contains no distortion (and no noise), then the
signal is perfect and cannot be improved upon. Yes, I'm considering freq.
resp. irregularities in with distortion where it belongs. So to answer your
question, the only SQ-limiting factor is distortion (and noise).

Mark Zarella, aka MZ wrote: "If a signal contains no distortion (and no
noise), then the signal is perfect and cannot be improved upon. Yes, I'm
considering freq. resp. irregularities in with distortion where it belongs.
So to answer your question, the only SQ-limiting factor is distortion (and
noise)."

So, if a CD player "A" has .0004% THD and CD player "B" also has .0004% THD,
then I won't be able to hear a difference? So every manufacturer has the
same standard for measuring THD?

There's absolutely nothing else to consider?

What sonic difference does brand "A" D/A converter have over brand "B"
converter? Or does it all hinge on THD?

So you're basically telling me that my C90, which many of us agree is one of
THE best sounding players EVER made, sounds no different than the 8053? If
you tell me it does, I'm gonna have to go out and buy one and see for
myself.

And what's the deal with all the short answers?? :-) I'm trying to learn
something here!!!

Tony



--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"MZ" wrote in message
...
"Well, when you put them both on a scope, you'll find essentially no
distortion. So where would you suppose the difference in sound would
come
from?"

So what you're telling me is that the only SQ-limiting factor as far as
head
units are considered is distortion?

And noise. If a signal contains no distortion (and no noise), then the
signal is perfect and cannot be improved upon. Yes, I'm considering freq.
resp. irregularities in with distortion where it belongs. So to answer
your
question, the only SQ-limiting factor is distortion (and noise).

Hi Mark,

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Dave, I actually currently have both in my closet (well, actually the Nak
is
a CD45z). I did a blind switched level-matched comparison a couple years
ago between several head units, and found no difference. Was your test
blind, level-matched, and a/b?

No, my tests absolutely were NOT blind, double-blind, level-matched nor
a/b'd. In a perfect world, that's what I'd want to do as my "sonic memory"
is fleeting at best (with one exception to follow). However, when I read
what Tony was saying, I could absolutely relate. When I was going through
all these head units and I was posting in here a bunch getting advice and
help, I'd always find something that I didn't like about all of them. I'd
probably STILL have the C90 today if the display wasn't absolutely useless
during the daylight hours (IF you have a light-colored interior).

I was always trying to avoid the trap of convincing myself that "since THIS
one is more expensive than the last one, then it MUST be better!" I had the
C90 in my ride with the same amps and speakers long enough to develop a
good, long-term memory of how it sounded. So, when the Nak was dropped in,
the differences were immediate and unmistakeable. My '700 is still the best
sounding head unit I've ever owned. I'd probably be saying the same thing
about the C90 today if I could have gotten past the display issues. I guess
I'd characterize the '700 it as "effortless" at any volume....but at that
point the amps will have just as much if not more influence on the sound
quality. This Pioneer '7500 DVD head is going to have to kick some serious
butt to make me happy!

It's impossible to improve on perfection. All HU preamps these days are
essentially perfect. That is, they don't have distortion components that
are significant. Put a Jensen HU on a scope and you'll see what I mean.

The only other variable that I can think of sound quality variations is
one that I came across in home audio gear. In reading papers by people who
design preamps (and who are a hell of a lot smarter about electronics than I
am), they point to the fact that pre's (or at least poorly designed ones)
can be audibly affected simply by changing the interconnect cable. The
author was talking about why some people hear "major" differences between
all the boutique interconnect cables that are out there. His contention was
that a poorly designed or implemented pre output stage will be sonically
changed by the capacitance or loading of various interconnects. It might
even be a "good" change but the fact that this strand of plastic and
copper/silver/upsidasium that you plug into your preamp can affect the final
sonic output is inexcuseable. Agree?

Dave




"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mark,
I'd suggest that the differences Tony was hearing were the same ones I
heard
when I went from a C90 to a CD700 (after also going through the Denon
'950r
and 1000r, and a Sony C910). The C90 was one of the cleanest sounding
heads
I had ever owned but, like Tony, I didn't like the display as it was
unreadable here in the bright Florida sun. And, through my Dynaudio
System
340 and a/d/s/ amps, it sounded very nice. However, when I swapped the
C90
head out for the Nak (and level matched as closely as I could), there
was
an
immediate, audible difference in the sound quality. It's hard to
describe
the difference (smoother, less fatiguing, more accurate?) but it was
there
from the minute I put in one or two of my "reference" CD's. I'm sure you
have your favorite pieces of music that you can put into a new system
you
are auditioning that will tell you in seconds what's right or wrong with
the
setup.

The Nak met and exceeded my expectations immediately. Like Tony, I too
had
the occasional problem with skipping and that it had a problem reading
one
type of CD-R too but I LOVE the deck still. I'm now getting ready to
swap
out my '700 for a Pioneer '7500 DVD head because I want to get a nav
unit
and I want to be able to use my DVD-A's as well. I expect to be able to
tell
immediately whether I made a big kilobuck mistake or not. Of course, all
I

have to do to screw up this comparison would be to mismatch the level of
this newer, higher-output head unit by a fraction of a dB (or two) and I
might get fooled. However, (and I'm finally coming to the point)....if
the
quality of the D-to-A conversion is poor on the Pioneer, then the Nak
wins,
IMHO. I think that this is probably the "purest" test of a change in
heads
because (if you can level-match the two heads you're comparing), then
the
quality of the D-to-A chips (along with the quality of the output
circuits)
should be there is to make an audible difference. A poorly designed and
implemented output stage will totally screw up ANYTHING that is
happening
"upstream" in the audio chain.

dave


"MZ" wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella wrote: "Then you're not going to be able to tell a
difference
between the two in terms of "SQ"

Would you please educate me as to why this is possible?

Well, when you put them both on a scope, you'll find essentially no
distortion. So where would you suppose the difference in sound would
come
from?

I've heard distinct
differences in several of the HUs I've owned...to name a few:

Alpine CDA-7939
Eclipse 5303R
Nakamichi CD-700
Sony CDX C90

I have no explanation for your experiences. I'd suggest the testing
strategy, the configuration of the setup, or something being wrong
with
the
unit. Sorry.

As scientists have demonstrated over the ages: An inability to measure
something does not negate its existence. Likewise, not knowing how to
measure something doesn't negate its existence (or impact) either.

A logical inference here is that distortion is not the component of sound
quality that matters to this listener. There is a difference between two
channels of music and stereo. Contrary to the popular misconception, the
root of stereo pertains to "truth" or "reality", not "two." The original
specification for stereo reproduction was actually three channels - left,
center and right.

I don't pretend to be able to explain why one system images better than
another, but I can clearly here the difference between a system that images
well and one that doesn't. And no, "imaging" is not a synonym for
"separation." "Imaging" and "sound stage", as these terms relate to music
reproduction are as important to me as accuracy of timber, dynamic range,
and adequate frequency response in my assessment of the sound quality of a
system. Apparently, the OP shares my concerns. Some folks think a lack of
harmonic distortion is sufficient to declare a system "high-end." As far as
I'm concerned, low distortion is a necessary characteristic; but not
sufficient in and of itself to make a system acceptable.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella wrote: "Then you're not going to be able to tell a
difference
between the two in terms of "SQ"

Would you please educate me as to why this is possible?

Well, when you put them both on a scope, you'll find essentially no
distortion. So where would you suppose the difference in sound would come
from?

I've heard distinct
differences in several of the HUs I've owned...to name a few:

Alpine CDA-7939
Eclipse 5303R
Nakamichi CD-700
Sony CDX C90

I have no explanation for your experiences. I'd suggest the testing
strategy, the configuration of the setup, or something being wrong with
the
unit. Sorry.

To reiterate; it depends on what factors you consider important to sound
quality.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
"Well, when you put them both on a scope, you'll find essentially no
distortion. So where would you suppose the difference in sound would
come
from?"

So what you're telling me is that the only SQ-limiting factor as far as
head
units are considered is distortion?

And noise. If a signal contains no distortion (and no noise), then the
signal is perfect and cannot be improved upon. Yes, I'm considering freq.
resp. irregularities in with distortion where it belongs. So to answer
your
question, the only SQ-limiting factor is distortion (and noise).

Do these things have rca outs too?

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
Stephen Narayan wrote: "Tony I gotta throw one more headunit into the mix
just cus it's such a good deal right now...

Rockford Fosgate RFX8250 that was made by Denon for them. Basically
the same as a Denon DCT-A1 with modifications to work with Rockfords
balanced line cables. They are available on Sound Domain for $299...."

Yes, I've been hearing good things about those decks. Don't get me wrong,
I
realize there are several other good head units available out there, I was
just merely listing the ones I've owned (at least the ones worthy of
mentioning).

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or,
that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we
wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"Stephen Narayan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 07:34:34 -0800, "Tony Fernandes"
wrote:

I've done a thorough Deja search and still haven't found exactly what
I'm
looking for. I'm frustrated (or elated) that Eclipse's CD8053 player
is
mentioned in the same sentence as Sony's CDX-C90, Nak's CD-700, and
Denon's
DCT-Z1 in terms of SQ. I presently own the C90 and I'm quite happy
with
the
sound, but it has a crappy display and is difficult to navigate through
its
menus. I used to own the CD-700 and was REALLY impressed with the
sound
and
ease of use but got quicly bored with it (and tired of the skipping).
What
I want to know is if the 8053 is REALLY on par with these other units.
I've
listened to it at my local retailer, but it's really impossible to
compare
with what I have & have had without some controlled tests, which is
virtually impossible. I'm in love with the 8053's features and good
looks,
but I'm not willing to fork out the money only to find I'm disappointed
in
the SQ dept. after I've had it to listen to a while in my car. It's
certainly a LOT cheaper than the others, which might be an
indicator...I
could go on and on. Help???

Tony

Tony I gotta throw one more headunit into the mix just cus it's such a
good deal right now...

Rockford Fosgate RFX8250 that was made by Denon for them. Basically
the same as a Denon DCT-A1 with modifications to work with Rockfords
balanced line cables. They are available on Sound Domain for $299....


Stephen Narayan | | IASCA Certified Judge
http://www.teamrocs.com | Home of the original RAC Bada$$es
Denon DCT-1000R & Rockford RFX8250
PPI DEQ230/FRX456 EQ/x-over | Orion NT-300 BIQ EQ/preamp | NT-200 BIX
x-over
Four Phase Linear Euro.6s kW Slave amps and 4.8 kW Power Supply unit
Focal TN46 tweeters & 6K1 mids | 2 Aliante 8" midwoofers
Phase Linear Euro HC 15's

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Dave, I actually currently have both in my closet (well, actually the
Nak
is
a CD45z). I did a blind switched level-matched comparison a couple
years
ago between several head units, and found no difference. Was your test
blind, level-matched, and a/b?

No, my tests absolutely were NOT blind, double-blind, level-matched nor
a/b'd. In a perfect world, that's what I'd want to do as my "sonic memory"
is fleeting at best (with one exception to follow). However, when I read
what Tony was saying, I could absolutely relate. When I was going through
all these head units and I was posting in here a bunch getting advice and
help, I'd always find something that I didn't like about all of them. I'd
probably STILL have the C90 today if the display wasn't absolutely useless
during the daylight hours (IF you have a light-colored interior).

I hear you. I ended up not using ANY head unit (now I just use a computer),
partly because I couldn't find any for under $1000 that had all the features
I wanted. I came close with the Nak, but the tuner was just plain pathetic
and it seemed I was always waiting for the other shoe to drop based on
reliability nightmare stories I've encountered.


I was always trying to avoid the trap of convincing myself that "since
THIS
one is more expensive than the last one, then it MUST be better!"

Some of my favorite head units in the past (Eclipse decks from ~5 years ago,
Kenwood PS-series decks like the PS-905, Sony C90, the older Pioneer Premier
and Denon units, etc) can in some cases be gotten on ebay nowadays for under
a hundred. So the price thing definitely can be misleading, and I'm sure
there's a lot of people out there attaching sound quality differences to it.

I had the
C90 in my ride with the same amps and speakers long enough to develop a
good, long-term memory of how it sounded. So, when the Nak was dropped in,
the differences were immediate and unmistakeable. My '700 is still the
best
sounding head unit I've ever owned. I'd probably be saying the same thing
about the C90 today if I could have gotten past the display issues. I
guess
I'd characterize the '700 it as "effortless" at any volume....but at that
point the amps will have just as much if not more influence on the sound
quality. This Pioneer '7500 DVD head is going to have to kick some serious
butt to make me happy!

I've had the same experiences. Put the new deck in and something sounds
different. But when you go in and try to implement all the proper controls
like level-matching, switching, and remove listener bias, these things
disappear! The exception of course can be the tone controls. The fact that
my NAK had a mid tone control and my Eclipse 5342 didn't was a huge SQ
advantage for the Nak.


It's impossible to improve on perfection. All HU preamps these days are
essentially perfect. That is, they don't have distortion components
that
are significant. Put a Jensen HU on a scope and you'll see what I mean.

The only other variable that I can think of sound quality variations
is
one that I came across in home audio gear. In reading papers by people who
design preamps (and who are a hell of a lot smarter about electronics than
I
am), they point to the fact that pre's (or at least poorly designed ones)
can be audibly affected simply by changing the interconnect cable. The
author was talking about why some people hear "major" differences between
all the boutique interconnect cables that are out there. His contention
was
that a poorly designed or implemented pre output stage will be sonically
changed by the capacitance or loading of various interconnects. It might
even be a "good" change but the fact that this strand of plastic and
copper/silver/upsidasium that you plug into your preamp can affect the
final
sonic output is inexcuseable. Agree?

Not really, no. The reactance change usually isn't all that significant
across a number of different cables. Well, let me rephrase that. It's
different, but differences become negligible in such high impedance
circuits. In other words, a capacitance value of 0.5 nF per meter will have
no effect on a circuit with a 10kohm input impedance. Note that this 0.5
nF/m number is pretty typical of standard cables. There was a paper
published in the J.AES years back where speaker cable reactance was measured
for a variety of different cables. I've posted it he
http://www.geocities.com/audiotechpa.../spkrcable.pdf .

Anyway, the differences between preamps in the manner that you mention can
best be described by the output impedance of the preamp. That's essentially
a measure of the internal resistance, capacitance, and inductance of the
circuit. There can in fact be huge differences. But the bottom line is
that since it's terminating in a high impedance load, any variations in
output impedance become negligible. There can, however, be significant
levels of noise differences, but this is more frequently dominated by
installation noise and road noise. Besides, I wouldn't necessarily
attribute noise levels to SQ in the context that it's being used in this
thread.

Mark Zarella, aka MZ wrote: "If a signal contains no distortion (and no
noise), then the signal is perfect and cannot be improved upon. Yes, I'm
considering freq. resp. irregularities in with distortion where it
belongs.
So to answer your question, the only SQ-limiting factor is distortion (and
noise)."

So, if a CD player "A" has .0004% THD and CD player "B" also has .0004%
THD,
then I won't be able to hear a difference? So every manufacturer has the
same standard for measuring THD?

Well, see, the THD ratings should be thrown right out the window. Harmonic
distortion arises from a number of different sources, and these sources tend
to be dependent on things like temperature, load, frequency, output level,
and others. As you can see, these things all vary in a given head unit. So
when you make dist measurements, you'll often see hundred-fold differences
when you test at different frequencies, or test with white noise instead of
tone bursts, or at full power instead of half power or low power, or into
reactive loads instead of high impedance resistive loads or other reactive
loads, etc. In short, manufacturer ratings are useless. This really sucks
if you're a consumer, because it gives us a less objective measurement of
performance.

One example is with power amplifiers. Whenever I've measured harmonic
distortion (using some tests, but not others...hmmmmm....), the THD% tends
to be highest at the lowest volume levels. This probably isn't surprising,
because one prominent source of harmonics ("crossover distortion" in AB
amplifiers) is somewhat constant across all power levels, so when you're
expressing THD in percent it would cause the percentage to rise as the
signal is decreased. So one question should always be: at what power level
is the manufacturer measuring THD? They usually tell you THD+N @ 1kHz, but
they don't always state power and load.

Besides, many would argue that IMD (intermodulation distortion) is more
important than harmonic distortion anyway. Based on the
psychoacoustical evidence that I've encountered, and my own distortion
measurements, I'd tend to agree with that notion. And still others lump IMD
in with THD+N...

Basically, if you're a numbers guy, you're screwed.


There's absolutely nothing else to consider?

Noise can sometimes be an issue. Some units produce more noise than others.
But, much more importantly, some units are more PRONE to noise than others.
Tone controls are of course always an issue. Some center their tone
controls at different spots and with different Q's. Frequency response is
another issue that's usually looked at, but perhaps surprisingly, the freq
response of virtually all HUs is essentially flat. The only perturbations
tend to be (not always, but usually) at the very high frequencies (ie.
10kHz). Humans are very insensitive up there anyway, and it's almost
always dips and not peaks, and they're broad and steadily decreasing. You
may be asking: so what if they're broad and steady? And why should it
matter that they're dips instead of peaks? Well, there's evidence that our
auditory systems can actually be more sensitive to peaks rather than dips.
And the width of the dip/peak and its spectral location is vitally
important.


What sonic difference does brand "A" D/A converter have over brand "B"
converter? Or does it all hinge on THD?

DACs use different strategies to recreate the signal because the resolution
of the amplitude of the signal is finite. So DACs tend to "connect the
dots", so to speak, differently than others. As a result, the recreated
signal is a bunch of steps or ramps connecting each point (warning:
oversimplification). Some DACs, for instance, go through a lot of effort to
reduce these discontinuities in the signal. The end result is that one
DAC's signal is a better recreation of the original than another's. But the
differences are so small that the ear cannot possibly pick them up.

So you're basically telling me that my C90, which many of us agree is one
of
THE best sounding players EVER made, sounds no different than the 8053?
If
you tell me it does, I'm gonna have to go out and buy one and see for
myself.

And what's the deal with all the short answers?? :-) I'm trying to learn
something here!!!

Hopefully these answers provided more insight.

As scientists have demonstrated over the ages: An inability to measure
something does not negate its existence. Likewise, not knowing how to
measure something doesn't negate its existence (or impact) either.

That's right. So if there are other forces at work here (literally, forces
not consisting of the four basic forces that modern physics has thus far
defined), therein could lie the difference. But based on what physics has
currently set in front of us, we can make logical conclusions.

A logical inference here is that distortion is not the component of sound
quality that matters to this listener. There is a difference between two
channels of music and stereo. Contrary to the popular misconception, the
root of stereo pertains to "truth" or "reality", not "two." The original
specification for stereo reproduction was actually three channels - left,
center and right.

I don't pretend to be able to explain why one system images better than
another, but I can clearly here the difference between a system that
images
well and one that doesn't. And no, "imaging" is not a synonym for
"separation." "Imaging" and "sound stage", as these terms relate to music
reproduction are as important to me as accuracy of timber, dynamic range,
and adequate frequency response in my assessment of the sound quality of a
system. Apparently, the OP shares my concerns. Some folks think a lack of
harmonic distortion is sufficient to declare a system "high-end." As far
as
I'm concerned, low distortion is a necessary characteristic; but not
sufficient in and of itself to make a system acceptable.

Nowhere did I mean to imply that harmonic distortion was the only aspect of
the signal that was important for the analysis. There are other forms of
distortion as well (which frequency response and crosstalk between channels
are technically a part of), and noise. There are only three components that
define a the output of a system: the signal goes in, and out comes 1) the
signal, 2) distortion, and 3) noise. So my point is to quantify #2 and #3,
and note that if #2 and #3 are zero, then according to the laws of physics
(those that we currently have a grasp on, as you point out at the beginning
of your post), you have no difference in sound quality.

And unless I'm mistaken, output
voltage has nothing to do with SQ, only noise rejection.

I usually factor noise rejection as being part of SQ. Just thought I'd bring it
up.

What does the position of the amplifier gain control have to do with the
sound quality?

The systems I heard with the Eclipse decks had a lower noise floor and didn't
seem as "boosted" because of the higher voltage output from the deck and from
the lower gain settings.