[Art Landy]

Do my eyes deceive me? From reading several posts, the implication is that
spending money on an upscale CD player is foolish. I'm using a McIntosh
4100 receiver with Martin Logan Sequel II speakers and want to add a CD
player. In my other system I have been using a Rotel 955AX CD player and
have been pretty satisfied with it. For my Mac-Martin Logan system, would a
CD player costing $100-$300 be as satisfying soundwise as, say the Rega
Apollo (which I've been considering)? I don't really care about such things
as imaging and soundstage, but just want as much as I can get of everything
else for the price. I trust the opinion of my fellow audiophiles more than I
do that of the hi-fi rags. Please help.

[dezza]

Do expensive cd players sound better ???

http://aroundcny.com/Technofile/texts/cdcosts88.html

[mp]

Art Landy wrote:

Do my eyes deceive me? From reading several posts, the implication is that
spending money on an upscale CD player is foolish. I'm using a McIntosh
4100 receiver with Martin Logan Sequel II speakers and want to add a CD
player. In my other system I have been using a Rotel 955AX CD player and
have been pretty satisfied with it. For my Mac-Martin Logan system, would a
CD player costing $100-$300 be as satisfying soundwise as, say the Rega
Apollo (which I've been considering)? I don't really care about such things
as imaging and soundstage, but just want as much as I can get of everything
else for the price. I trust the opinion of my fellow audiophiles more than I
do that of the hi-fi rags. Please help.

There are a lot of reasons to own, say, the Accuphase, instead of the
cheap Denon that I mentioned in another post. With an Accuphase you
will own something that is very well built and looks like it cost 4 or 5
large. Accuphase highlights wonderful Japanese craftsmanship, and it
may therefore inspire pride of ownership. It will likely last a very
long time (although who can really say?). If it does break your dealer
will probably be willing to give you a loaner while it's in the shop.

The Denon looks OK, but is made of plastic and thin sheet metal. The
inside contains commodity parts all assembled in China. If it breaks
after a couple of years you are on your own, yet since you only paid 150
small you simply go out and buy a new one.

Nevertheless, if you throw a blanket over the Accuphase and compare it
to the Denon you will not be able to tell a difference if you are being
honest with yourself.

The key is being honest with oneself. It is easy to listen one day and
hear one thing, and listen another day and experience something else.
So, what has really changed? The gear remains the same. Thus, the
answer to the question must be something else.

mp

[Peter Wieck]

Art Landy wrote:
Do my eyes deceive me? From reading several posts, the implication is that
spending money on an upscale CD player is foolish.

Despite rumors to the contrary, about the only significant difference
between *reasonably* well designed CD players is the eyewash and the
potential for longevity. So, we may reject the $29 dollar units out of
hand for the most part as they will fail the longevity test (at least)
in short order.

But for a fact, my bench-test CD player is a vintage Sony Walkman with
the external AC pack attached. It sounds no different from either my
Revox, Philips (Austria) or late-model Yamaha, just without the various
bells, whistles, lights and screens.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Walt]

Art Landy wrote:

Do my eyes deceive me? From reading several posts, the implication is that
spending money on an upscale CD player is foolish. I'm using a McIntosh
4100 receiver with Martin Logan Sequel II speakers and want to add a CD
player. In my other system I have been using a Rotel 955AX CD player and
have been pretty satisfied with it. For my Mac-Martin Logan system, would a
CD player costing $100-$300 be as satisfying soundwise as, say the Rega
Apollo (which I've been considering)? I don't really care about such things
as imaging and soundstage, but just want as much as I can get of everything
else for the price. I trust the opinion of my fellow audiophiles more than I
do that of the hi-fi rags. Please help.


Well, the rub is that what a CD player is supposed to do is well defined
and quite measurable. Manufactururs have figured out how to do it
inexpensively, so there's not a lot of difference between the commodity
units and the pricey ones. You may get better build quality implying
greater longevity (or not, as has been my experience).

I'm not claiming that they all sound exactly the same, but to the extent
that there is an audible difference it's fairly small and subtle, if
it's even detectable. Contrast that to speakers, where the differences
are pronounced and un-subtle, and where more cash can definitely get you
better sound.

So, if you have a limited budget, a $100 cd player and two $450 speakers
will probably get you farther than a $500 cd player and two $250
speakers. With a CD player, you reach the point of diminishing returns
at about $100 or so. With speakers, the point of diminishing returns is
much higher - something like $1000 to $2000. Spend your money where it
will do the most good.

//Walt

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
Art Landy wrote:
Do my eyes deceive me? From reading several posts, the implication is that
spending money on an upscale CD player is foolish.

Despite rumors to the contrary, about the only significant difference
between *reasonably* well designed CD players is the eyewash and the
potential for longevity. So, we may reject the $29 dollar units out of
hand for the most part as they will fail the longevity test (at least)
in short order.

But for a fact, my bench-test CD player is a vintage Sony Walkman with
the external AC pack attached. It sounds no different from either my
Revox, Philips (Austria) or late-model Yamaha, just without the various
bells, whistles, lights and screens.

Back in the early 90's, Stereophile's Sam Tellig was *all over* a Radioshack
portable CD player...but only if played using battery power, of course.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Stuart Krivis]

On 6 Oct 2006 02:07:39 GMT, "Art Landy" wrote:

Do my eyes deceive me? From reading several posts, the implication is that
spending money on an upscale CD player is foolish. I'm using a McIntosh
4100 receiver with Martin Logan Sequel II speakers and want to add a CD
player. In my other system I have been using a Rotel 955AX CD player and
have been pretty satisfied with it. For my Mac-Martin Logan system, would a
CD player costing $100-$300 be as satisfying soundwise as, say the Rega
Apollo (which I've been considering)? I don't really care about such things
as imaging and soundstage, but just want as much as I can get of everything
else for the price. I trust the opinion of my fellow audiophiles more than I
do that of the hi-fi rags. Please help.

Perhaps another Rotel player? You like the one you have, and Rotel has
always seemed to produce a pretty decent product for the money in my
opinion.

As for the Rega, they are applying tweaks in the analog domain, and
hoping you won't realize that they don't apply to digital.

A good example is: "Firstly it presents the disc as flat as is
possible to the laser spot directly resulting in improved reading of
the information on the disc." This is from their web site.

First of all, I have never seen anything to suggest that other CD
players of reasonable quality (like your Rotel) have trouble with
keeping the disc and laser in their proper places respective to one
another.

Second, there really isn't any such thing as "improved reading" of the
data. It is either read properly or it is not. When it is not then
error correction provides the correct data. If things are so screwed
up that even error correction does not suffice, the point is moot
because keeping the disc "as flat as is possible to the laser spot" is
not going to make one iota of difference.

Finally, I see nothing factual on the Rega web site to back up their
claims for the Apollo and Saturn products.

I think they should stick to making turntables. :-)

[DW]

For a basic format CD player, I got an entry-level Arcam. For SACD (not so
big on DVD-Audio), and entry-level Sony ES model, or an entry-level Pioneer
Elite (which offers the most features with quality in a universal player)
model would be my choices.

For you, any CD player (SACD will give you a more extended frequency
response and greater dynamic range) in the price range that you're
considering that gives you the features that you want and the looks that you
are satisfied with should be the right player for you.

On the flipside, I've had reliability issues with more than one CD player
from both Denon and NAD over the years.

Happy Listening!

-DW
An audiophile and music lover for over 25 years (and counting)!

"Art Landy" wrote in message
...
Do my eyes deceive me? From reading several posts, the implication is that
spending money on an upscale CD player is foolish. I'm using a McIntosh
4100 receiver with Martin Logan Sequel II speakers and want to add a CD
player. In my other system I have been using a Rotel 955AX CD player and
have been pretty satisfied with it. For my Mac-Martin Logan system, would
a
CD player costing $100-$300 be as satisfying soundwise as, say the Rega
Apollo (which I've been considering)? I don't really care about such
things
as imaging and soundstage, but just want as much as I can get of
everything
else for the price. I trust the opinion of my fellow audiophiles more than
I
do that of the hi-fi rags. Please help.

[[email protected]]

On 6 Oct 2006 23:19:40 GMT, Stuart Krivis wrote:

Second, there really isn't any such thing as "improved reading" of the
data. It is either read properly or it is not. When it is not then
error correction provides the correct data

That's not true. Audio CD players have less error correction
processing than data CDs. There is a reason why people pay lots of
money for top end CD transports.

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-17

[jwvm]

On Oct 7, 10:28 am, wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 23:19:40 GMT, Stuart Krivis wrote:

Second, there really isn't any such thing as "improved reading" of the
data. It is either read properly or it is not. When it is not then
error correction provides the correct dataThat's not true. Audio CD players have less error correction
processing than data CDs. There is a reason why people pay lots of
money for top end CD transports.

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-17

Can you provide any credible references that expensive players provide
enhanced error correction or can read damaged CDs better? The current
generation of mass-produced processing chips for CD players are very
effective at correcting and masking errors and are also very
inexpensive. It is not at all obvious that high-end low-volume
manufacturers would be able to produce better players using custom
chips given the very high cost of chip development even for very
expensive players..

[Stuart Krivis]

On 7 Oct 2006 14:28:23 GMT, wrote:

On 6 Oct 2006 23:19:40 GMT, Stuart Krivis wrote:

Second, there really isn't any such thing as "improved reading" of the
data. It is either read properly or it is not. When it is not then
error correction provides the correct data

That's not true. Audio CD players have less error correction
processing than data CDs. There is a reason why people pay lots of
money for top end CD transports.

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-17


People pay lots of money for "top end" CD transports because they have
more money than sense. :-)

The link you posted does nothing to argue otherwise.

[Stuart Krivis]

On 7 Oct 2006 19:21:27 GMT, "jwvm" wrote:

On Oct 7, 10:28 am, wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 23:19:40 GMT, Stuart Krivis wrote:

Second, there really isn't any such thing as "improved reading" of the
data. It is either read properly or it is not. When it is not then
error correction provides the correct dataThat's not true. Audio CD players have less error correction
processing than data CDs. There is a reason why people pay lots of
money for top end CD transports.

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-17

Can you provide any credible references that expensive players provide
enhanced error correction or can read damaged CDs better? The current
generation of mass-produced processing chips for CD players are very
effective at correcting and masking errors and are also very
inexpensive. It is not at all obvious that high-end low-volume
manufacturers would be able to produce better players using custom
chips given the very high cost of chip development even for very
expensive players..

But they apply some foo-foo dust, and that makes all the difference!
:-)