Killer CD player

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD player for a few
days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00.
Highly recommended. Very detailed, very quiet (quieter than my test
equipment, in fact) and, IMO, extremely well priced. It will accept the
output of a transport, or it can be used as a transport on it's own
(though why you'd bother, I don't know). The DAC in this thing will
comprehensively clobber any surround sound reciever I know of. In fact,
it is clearly superior to pretty much anything I've used in my system
recently.

If you need a high end player, you would do worse than listening to this
puppy. Mind blowing value for money, IMO.

For those who care about technical stuff:

Frequency response: 20Hz - 20kHz +0/-0.5dB
THD: <0.0009% @1kHz
Dynamic range: >116dB
S/N: 116dB
Channel Sparation: >115dB

Oversampling: 24 bits/384kHz Asynchonous Sample Rate Covertor

This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages! There appears, at
this stage, to be very little required in the way of enhancements. HK
have REALLY done their homework with this machine.

[Disclosure]
I have no relationship with Convoy International (the importer of HK). I
do not retail HK equipment, nor do I have any relationship with HK USA.
I purchased the HKD970 through a HK retailer.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote
in message

> I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD
> player for a few days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real
> giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00. Highly recommended. Very
> detailed, very quiet (quieter than my test equipment, in
> fact) and, IMO, extremely well priced. It will accept the
> output of a transport, or it can be used as a transport
> on it's own (though why you'd bother, I don't know). The
> DAC in this thing will comprehensively clobber any
> surround sound reciever I know of. In fact, it is clearly
> superior to pretty much anything I've used in my system
> recently.

> If you need a high end player, you would do worse than
> listening to this puppy. Mind blowing value for money,
> IMO.

> For those who care about technical stuff:

> Frequency response: 20Hz - 20kHz +0/-0.5dB

Not all that wonderful.

> THD: <0.0009% @1kHz

Irrelevantly low.

> Dynamic range: >116dB
> S/N: 116dB
> Channel Sparation: >115dB

All completely garbage specs for a medium with a built-in 98 dB dynamic
range limit.

> Oversampling: 24 bits/384kHz Asynchonous Sample
> Rate Covertor

Converters like that must be down around a buck. Besides, what good is 384
KHz sampling capability for a 44,100 Hz sampled medium?

> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!

As if good op amps don't cost less than $0.50.

> There appears, at this stage, to be very little required
> in the way of enhancements. HK have REALLY done their
> homework with this machine.

Obviously someone needs to cut back on the coffee ration for their
engineering department. I seriously doubt that they will make back their
development costs on this one.

It would be fun to double blind compare this to a $25 portable CD player.

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!

But why ?

Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It sounds like pandering to
the audiophools to me.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!

> But why ?

It sounds high-techhy to the unwashed.

> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp? It
> sounds like pandering to the audiophools to me.

The battle of audio op amps was won back in the late 1970s, when the 5532
came out. Some people are apparently still catching up.

Let me be clear - if I wanted to build the highest-voltage,
widest-bandwidth, highest-current, lowest-noise op amp ever, I might still
use at least some discrete transistors. But those requirements have nothing
to do with what makes an appropriate output stage for a CD player.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>
> > For those who care about technical stuff:
>
> > Frequency response: 20Hz - 20kHz +0/-0.5dB
>
> Not all that wonderful.

Indeed. -0.5dB is a bit sloppy.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>> wrote
>>
>>> For those who care about technical stuff:
>>
>>> Frequency response: 20Hz - 20kHz +0/-0.5dB
>>
>> Not all that wonderful.
>
> Indeed. -0.5dB is a bit sloppy.

A big fat wide 0.5 dB dip in the midrange can even be subtly audible.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> Trevor Wilson > wrote:
>
>> I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD player for a few
>> days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00.
>> Highly recommended. Very detailed, very quiet (quieter than my test
>> equipment, in fact) and, IMO, extremely well priced. It will accept the
>> output of a transport, or it can be used as a transport on it's own
>> (though why you'd bother, I don't know). The DAC in this thing will
>> comprehensively clobber any surround sound reciever I know of. In fact,
>> it is clearly superior to pretty much anything I've used in my system
>> recently.
>>
>> If you need a high end player, you would do worse than listening to this
>> puppy. Mind blowing value for money, IMO.
>
> <specs, disclosure snipped>
>
> It doesn't seem to be on sale online in the US. Thanks for sharing
> anyway.

**You're right. It's weird. It's available in Italy, but not the UK, for
instance. Hassle your distributor. You're missing out on a bloody good
player at an amazing price.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>
> But why ?

**You'll need to ask HK that.

>
> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It sounds like pandering to
> the audiophools to me.

**I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this thing sound
better than high Dollar CD players or not. That it does (sound better)
is beyond doubt.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
> in message
>
>> I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD
>> player for a few days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real
>> giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00. Highly recommended. Very
>> detailed, very quiet (quieter than my test equipment, in
>> fact) and, IMO, extremely well priced. It will accept the
>> output of a transport, or it can be used as a transport
>> on it's own (though why you'd bother, I don't know). The
>> DAC in this thing will comprehensively clobber any
>> surround sound reciever I know of. In fact, it is clearly
>> superior to pretty much anything I've used in my system
>> recently.
>
>> If you need a high end player, you would do worse than
>> listening to this puppy. Mind blowing value for money,
>> IMO.
>
>> For those who care about technical stuff:
>
>> Frequency response: 20Hz - 20kHz +0/-0.5dB
>
> Not all that wonderful.
>
>> THD: <0.0009% @1kHz
>
> Irrelevantly low.
>
>> Dynamic range: >116dB
>> S/N: 116dB
>> Channel Sparation: >115dB
>
> All completely garbage specs for a medium with a built-in 98 dB dynamic
> range limit.
>
>> Oversampling: 24 bits/384kHz Asynchonous Sample
>> Rate Covertor
>
> Converters like that must be down around a buck. Besides, what good is 384
> KHz sampling capability for a 44,100 Hz sampled medium?
>
>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>
> As if good op amps don't cost less than $0.50.

**Nope. I pay more than that for the AD825 (single OP amp only). It is
the best I've used.

>
>> There appears, at this stage, to be very little required
>> in the way of enhancements. HK have REALLY done their
>> homework with this machine.
>
> Obviously someone needs to cut back on the coffee ration for their
> engineering department. I seriously doubt that they will make back their
> development costs on this one.
>
> It would be fun to double blind compare this to a $25 portable CD player.

**Fun? no. Annoying, Yes.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...
> MiNe 109 wrote:

> > It doesn't seem to be on sale online in the US. Thanks for sharing
> > anyway.
>
> **You're right. It's weird. It's available in Italy, but not the UK, for
> instance. Hassle your distributor. You're missing out on a bloody good
> player at an amazing price.

It doesn't appear to be available in Canada either.

I'm definitely interested in acquiring a CD player. I had been thinking
of the Rotel RCD-1072 but you've got me interested in the HK. Do you
have any idea how the two players would compare?

--
Bill

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>
>> But why ?
>
> It sounds high-techhy to the unwashed.

**Except that HK never mention it anywhere. The only place you can find
out, is by physical examination, or, if you are like me, by examining
the schematic. I purchased the machine after sighting the service manual.

>
>> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp? It
>> sounds like pandering to the audiophools to me.
>
> The battle of audio op amps was won back in the late 1970s, when the 5532
> came out. Some people are apparently still catching up.

**Nope. You are. Whilst the 5532 is still a fine OP amp, ther are
superior sounding ones available. The AD825 is my present choice. BTW:
Your preferred choice of CD player (the $25.00 portable) probably uses a
4558 class OP amp. A clearly audibly inferior IC to a 5532/5534.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Jenn]

In article >,
Bill Riel > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
>
> > > It doesn't seem to be on sale online in the US. Thanks for sharing
> > > anyway.
> >
> > **You're right. It's weird. It's available in Italy, but not the UK, for
> > instance. Hassle your distributor. You're missing out on a bloody good
> > player at an amazing price.
>
> It doesn't appear to be available in Canada either.
>
> I'm definitely interested in acquiring a CD player. I had been thinking
> of the Rotel RCD-1072 ...

That's what I have; love it.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> Trevor Wilson > wrote:
>
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Trevor Wilson > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD player for a few
>>>> days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00.
>>>> Highly recommended. Very detailed, very quiet (quieter than my test
>>>> equipment, in fact) and, IMO, extremely well priced. It will accept the
>>>> output of a transport, or it can be used as a transport on it's own
>>>> (though why you'd bother, I don't know). The DAC in this thing will
>>>> comprehensively clobber any surround sound reciever I know of. In fact,
>>>> it is clearly superior to pretty much anything I've used in my system
>>>> recently.
>>>>
>>>> If you need a high end player, you would do worse than listening to this
>>>> puppy. Mind blowing value for money, IMO.
>>> <specs, disclosure snipped>
>>>
>>> It doesn't seem to be on sale online in the US. Thanks for sharing
>>> anyway.
>> **You're right. It's weird. It's available in Italy, but not the UK, for
>> instance. Hassle your distributor. You're missing out on a bloody good
>> player at an amazing price.
>
> If I needed a cd player, I might try that. For now I'll suffer with my
> Arcam CD-23. :-)

**Mmmmm. Nice player.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Bill Riel wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't seem to be on sale online in the US. Thanks for sharing
>>> anyway.
>> **You're right. It's weird. It's available in Italy, but not the UK, for
>> instance. Hassle your distributor. You're missing out on a bloody good
>> player at an amazing price.
>
> It doesn't appear to be available in Canada either.
>
> I'm definitely interested in acquiring a CD player. I had been thinking
> of the Rotel RCD-1072 but you've got me interested in the HK. Do you
> have any idea how the two players would compare?
>

**The Rotel is nice, but I suspect the HK would beat it. I've used the
Rotel in my system, but it has been awhile and I cannot do an A-B
comparison.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

>I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD player for a few
>days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00.
>Highly recommended. Very detailed, very quiet (quieter than my test
>equipment, in fact) and, IMO, extremely well priced. It will accept the
>output of a transport, or it can be used as a transport on it's own
>(though why you'd bother, I don't know). The DAC in this thing will
>comprehensively clobber any surround sound reciever I know of. In fact,
>it is clearly superior to pretty much anything I've used in my system
>recently.
>
>If you need a high end player, you would do worse than listening to this
>puppy. Mind blowing value for money, IMO.

How is the FF/REW function? Fairly quick and fast (like the old CD
players), or like a DVD player (slow and "burpy")?

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > > This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
> >
> > But why ?
> >
> > Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It sounds like pandering to
> > the audiophools to me.
>
> I've just acquired a Paradigm X-30 high pass filter to try with my
> sub.
> I tried it with 80 hz and 120 hz cutoff outputs and set the the sub
> accordingly.
> I like the sensitivity of the sb output control but I don't like what
> the high pass filter does to the midrange and highs. Seems like the
> soundstage has lost depth and some highs are somewhat unnatural...
> some bells have lost their subtle realism and become overbearing and
> piercing.

How were you previously connecting the sub and full-range speaker ?


> What op-amps are in that thing? Right now...I prefer my discrete
> preamp without this op-amp stage.

It seems to me that what you're experiencing is likely to be the effect of the
filters, not the op-amps in them. Yet people like to think they know stuff they
don't and on the basis that op-amps get a rough ride from the audiophools, then
op-amps get blamed for no good reason when good ones are actually entirely
blameless devices.

Do YOU know what op-amps are used in that filter ? Open it up maybe ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
> >
> > But why ?
>
> **You'll need to ask HK that.
>
> >
> > Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It sounds like pandering to
> > the audiophools to me.
>
> **I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this thing sound
> better than high Dollar CD players or not. That it does (sound better)
> is beyond doubt.

How would you describe the 'sounding better' ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
> >
> >> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
> >
> > As if good op amps don't cost less than $0.50.
>
> **Nope. I pay more than that for the AD825 (single OP amp only). It is
> the best I've used.

Seen Nat Semi's recentish LME49710/20/40 ?

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>>> But why ?
>> **You'll need to ask HK that.
>>
>>> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It sounds like pandering to
>>> the audiophools to me.
>> **I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this thing sound
>> better than high Dollar CD players or not. That it does (sound better)
>> is beyond doubt.
>
> How would you describe the 'sounding better' ?

**More accurate, of course.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD player for a few
> days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00.

Is this it for £203 ?
http://shop.cd-writer.com/catalog/hd970-p-27863.html

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>>>
>>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>>> As if good op amps don't cost less than $0.50.
>> **Nope. I pay more than that for the AD825 (single OP amp only). It is
>> the best I've used.
>
> Seen Nat Semi's recentish LME49710/20/40 ?

**Nope. How much are they?

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD player for a few
>> days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00.
>
> Is this it for £203 ?
> http://shop.cd-writer.com/catalog/hd970-p-27863.html

**It would seem so.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
> >>> As if good op amps don't cost less than $0.50.
> >> **Nope. I pay more than that for the AD825 (single OP amp only). It is
> >> the best I've used.
> >
> > Seen Nat Semi's recentish LME49710/20/40 ?
>
> **Nope. How much are they?

Relatively inexpensive for the performance that would normally be associated
with boutique AD, LT or BB types.

Might be interesting as a 5534/5532 sub.
http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LME49710.html

Graham

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD player for a few
> >> days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00.
> >
> > Is this it for £203 ?
> > http://shop.cd-writer.com/catalog/hd970-p-27863.html
>
> **It would seem so.

That's a competitive price for sure.

Graham

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-822339.13291802102007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
says...
> In article >,
> Bill Riel > wrote:
> > I'm definitely interested in acquiring a CD player. I had been thinking
> > of the Rotel RCD-1072 ...
>
> That's what I have; love it.

Thanks, Jenn.

It does seem to have a pretty good reputation and is supposed to be
solidly built.

One other thing that sways me in that direction is that I'm currently
using a 2 channel Rotel receiver and I could control the CD player using
the receiver remote.

Though, I'm half thinking of upgrading to separate amps as well, but
that's somewhere down the line!

--
Bill

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...

> **The Rotel is nice, but I suspect the HK would beat it. I've used the
> Rotel in my system, but it has been awhile and I cannot do an A-B
> comparison.

Thanks for the information. I will make an effort to find out if I can
get my hands on this CD player. It may be that it was never built for
the North American market though.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote
in message
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>>
>> But why ?
>
> **You'll need to ask HK that.
>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It
>> sounds like pandering to the audiophools to me.
>
> **I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this
> thing sound better than high Dollar CD players or not.
> That it does (sound better) is beyond doubt.

What's beyond doubt is that Trevor lacks what it takes to properly evaluate
this device.

It probably sounds no different than a $39 DVD player, once you strip away
all of the bias, prejudice and hype.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>>> wrote
>>>
>>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>>>
>>> As if good op amps don't cost less than $0.50.
>>
>> **Nope. I pay more than that for the AD825 (single OP
>> amp only). It is the best I've used.
>
> Seen Nat Semi's recentish LME49710/20/40 ?

Obviously not.

However, I'd like to see the results of Trevor's evaluation of a chain of
the 5532 op amps that he has blacklisted. Here's the question - how many
stages of 5532 unity gain buffer, operating at a peak signal level of 2
volts, can we cascade before Trevor would reliably hear a differnce. I
suspect that after 100 stages, he might have a chance! For part 2, lets up
the stage gain to 10 dB, and then interpose attenuators between the stages,
so the levels throughout the chain and the output level are still 2 volts.
For parts 3 and 4, let's up the gain again to 20 dB, and finally 40 dB.

In none of the cases above will Trevor be able to hear a change due to just
one stage. Doesn't stop him from posturing dogmatically and foolishly,
though.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote
in message
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>>>> wrote
>>>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>>>> As if good op amps don't cost less than $0.50.
>>> **Nope. I pay more than that for the AD825 (single OP
>>> amp only). It is the best I've used.
>>
>> Seen Nat Semi's recentish LME49710/20/40 ?
>
> **Nope. How much are they?

The right question is "how much overkill are they".

The answer in most applications is: Lots!

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>>>
>>> But why ?
>>
>> **You'll need to ask HK that.
>>
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It
>>> sounds like pandering to the audiophools to me.
>>
>> **I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this
>> thing sound better than high Dollar CD players or not.
>> That it does (sound better) is beyond doubt.
>
> How would you describe the 'sounding better' ?

Hype and dollar signs flashing through Trevor's mind.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Trevor Wilson" wrote
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
> >>
> >> But why ?
> >
> > **You'll need to ask HK that.
> >
> >> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It
> >> sounds like pandering to the audiophools to me.
> >
> > **I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this
> > thing sound better than high Dollar CD players or not.
> > That it does (sound better) is beyond doubt.
>
> What's beyond doubt is that Trevor lacks what it takes to properly evaluate
> this device.
>
> It probably sounds no different than a $39 DVD player, once you strip away
> all of the bias, prejudice and hype.

Perception is everything.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>>>>
>>>> But why ?
>>>
>>> **You'll need to ask HK that.
>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It
>>>> sounds like pandering to the audiophools to me.
>>>
>>> **I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this
>>> thing sound better than high Dollar CD players or not.
>>> That it does (sound better) is beyond doubt.
>>
>> What's beyond doubt is that Trevor lacks what it takes
>> to properly evaluate this device.
>>
>> It probably sounds no different than a $39 DVD player,
>> once you strip away all of the bias, prejudice and hype.

> Perception is everything.

Yes, but different people perceive the same facts differently.

The short(er) explanation is that perception is based primarily on memory,
expectations, and the immediate experience. My memory includes a lot of
personal experiences that many people, apparently Trevor included, have not
had the benefit of. Besides, what their memories recall of possibly similar
experiences are their perceptions of those experiences, which are in turn
based based on more memories and expectations.

So, where did my droplet of knowlege about what sounds different in audio
decide to go down the slope of the contintental divide that is based on
science versus less-scientifically-informed perception? Clearly, the
direction flow was already established when a friend and I agreed to use
level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests as our standard
for basing the resolution of our disagreement on. That was back in 1976 or
so.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Trevor Wilson" wrote
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
> >>>>
> >>>> But why ?
> >>>
> >>> **You'll need to ask HK that.
> >>>
> >>>> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It
> >>>> sounds like pandering to the audiophools to me.
> >>>
> >>> **I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this
> >>> thing sound better than high Dollar CD players or not.
> >>> That it does (sound better) is beyond doubt.
> >>
> >> What's beyond doubt is that Trevor lacks what it takes
> >> to properly evaluate this device.
> >>
> >> It probably sounds no different than a $39 DVD player,
> >> once you strip away all of the bias, prejudice and hype.
>
> > Perception is everything.
>
> Yes, but different people perceive the same facts differently.

My point exactly !!

Explains a lot.

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that what you're experiencing is likely to be the effect of the
> > filters, not the op-amps in them.
>
> No way to tell. I'm just saying I don't like it....makes me a little
> more suspsicious of the active speaker designs like Orion.

I'd suspect you don't like the separation between the sub and the full-range speakers.
In other words it's an acoustic effect you're hearing, not electronic.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
> in message
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>>> But why ?
>> **You'll need to ask HK that.
>>
>>> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It
>>> sounds like pandering to the audiophools to me.
>> **I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this
>> thing sound better than high Dollar CD players or not.
>> That it does (sound better) is beyond doubt.
>
> What's beyond doubt is that Trevor lacks what it takes to properly evaluate
> this device.
>
> It probably sounds no different than a $39 DVD player, once you strip away
> all of the bias, prejudice and hype.
>
>

**I suggest you obtain a copy of the latest article (October 2007) here:

http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/index.html

Silcon Chip acquired a range of ceap DVD players and compared them to a
regular 5 disk CD player. A variety of measured and audible problems
were encountered with the DVD players. Copyright laws prevent me from
going much further. I suggest you obtain a copy of the article.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[dizzy]

dizzy wrote:

>Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD player for a few
>>days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00.
>>Highly recommended. Very detailed, very quiet (quieter than my test
>>equipment, in fact) and, IMO, extremely well priced. It will accept the
>>output of a transport, or it can be used as a transport on it's own
>>(though why you'd bother, I don't know). The DAC in this thing will
>>comprehensively clobber any surround sound reciever I know of. In fact,
>>it is clearly superior to pretty much anything I've used in my system
>>recently.
>>
>>If you need a high end player, you would do worse than listening to this
>>puppy. Mind blowing value for money, IMO.
>
>How is the FF/REW function? Fairly quick and fast (like the old CD
>players), or like a DVD player (slow and "burpy")?

No answer for me. 8(

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>However, I'd like to see the results of Trevor's evaluation of a chain of
>the 5532 op amps that he has blacklisted. Here's the question - how many
>stages of 5532 unity gain buffer, operating at a peak signal level of 2
>volts, can we cascade before Trevor would reliably hear a differnce. I
>suspect that after 100 stages, he might have a chance! For part 2, lets up
>the stage gain to 10 dB, and then interpose attenuators between the stages,
>so the levels throughout the chain and the output level are still 2 volts.
>For parts 3 and 4, let's up the gain again to 20 dB, and finally 40 dB.
>
>In none of the cases above will Trevor be able to hear a change due to just
>one stage. Doesn't stop him from posturing dogmatically and foolishly,
>though.

Doug Self thinks the 5532 is the best. He backs it up with facts and
measurements.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/webbop/opamp.htm

'Course, Trevor might discount what Self thinks, because Self also
likes tone controls. 8)

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

dizzy wrote:
> dizzy wrote:
>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> I've been mucking about with an absolute honey of a CD player for a few
>>> days. A Harman Kardon HD970. A real giant-killer for RRP AUS$599.00.
>>> Highly recommended. Very detailed, very quiet (quieter than my test
>>> equipment, in fact) and, IMO, extremely well priced. It will accept the
>>> output of a transport, or it can be used as a transport on it's own
>>> (though why you'd bother, I don't know). The DAC in this thing will
>>> comprehensively clobber any surround sound reciever I know of. In fact,
>>> it is clearly superior to pretty much anything I've used in my system
>>> recently.
>>>
>>> If you need a high end player, you would do worse than listening to this
>>> puppy. Mind blowing value for money, IMO.
>> How is the FF/REW function? Fairly quick and fast (like the old CD
>> players), or like a DVD player (slow and "burpy")?
>
> No answer for me. 8(
>

**Sorry. I hadn't used that function. In fact, I can't say that I every
use that function. I have now. It takes around 10 seconds per minute.
IMO, THAT is the last reason anyone would or should buy this player. It
has been said that it's styling is rather ordinary. A point I agree
with. However, the sound is so damned good, I could care less.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

dizzy wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> However, I'd like to see the results of Trevor's evaluation of a chain of
>> the 5532 op amps that he has blacklisted. Here's the question - how many
>> stages of 5532 unity gain buffer, operating at a peak signal level of 2
>> volts, can we cascade before Trevor would reliably hear a differnce. I
>> suspect that after 100 stages, he might have a chance! For part 2, lets up
>> the stage gain to 10 dB, and then interpose attenuators between the stages,
>> so the levels throughout the chain and the output level are still 2 volts.
>> For parts 3 and 4, let's up the gain again to 20 dB, and finally 40 dB.
>>
>> In none of the cases above will Trevor be able to hear a change due to just
>> one stage. Doesn't stop him from posturing dogmatically and foolishly,
>> though.
>
> Doug Self thinks the 5532 is the best. He backs it up with facts and
> measurements.

**I see no mention of the AD825. A significantly better OP amp than the
5532.

>
> http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/webbop/opamp.htm
>
> 'Course, Trevor might discount what Self thinks, because Self also
> likes tone controls. 8)

**I have no problem with tone controls which operate in the digital
domain, nor those (digital types) which can be adjusted via the use of a
reference and appropriate test equipment.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

> IMO, THAT is the last reason anyone would or should buy this player.

You also said you adore it because of its "accuracy". Have you been to the
Nanite Detection Clinic lately?

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > > > It seems to me that what you're experiencing is likely to be the effect of the
> > > > filters, not the op-amps in them.
> >
> > > No way to tell. I'm just saying I don't like it....makes me a little
> > > more suspsicious of the active speaker designs like Orion.
> >
> > I'd suspect you don't like the separation between the sub and the full-range speakers.
>
> You suspect wrongly considering I've lived with that sub and speakers
> for years.
> I even left the sub off trying to get a handle on the sound changes.
> Sound staging went flat and there was this annoying high freq ring to
> bells, brushes got all slushy sounding.....literally reminded of
> slurpy sucking.
>
> > In other words it's an acoustic effect you're hearing, not electronic.
>
> Nope...the acoustic effects of this device should be only bass related
> and the changes I didn't like are more high freq.
>
> But keep plugging away...I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss what I
> hear eventually.

Maybe there are crap filers in that device then (poorly matched amplitude and phase response
for example).?

The last thing I'd suspect is the 'sound' of op-amps. It's a bit like filling your gas tank
with different fuel and blaming the lower mpg on the tyres.

Graham

[Eeyore]

dizzy wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >However, I'd like to see the results of Trevor's evaluation of a chain of
> >the 5532 op amps that he has blacklisted. Here's the question - how many
> >stages of 5532 unity gain buffer, operating at a peak signal level of 2
> >volts, can we cascade before Trevor would reliably hear a differnce. I
> >suspect that after 100 stages, he might have a chance! For part 2, lets up
> >the stage gain to 10 dB, and then interpose attenuators between the stages,
> >so the levels throughout the chain and the output level are still 2 volts.
> >For parts 3 and 4, let's up the gain again to 20 dB, and finally 40 dB.
> >
> >In none of the cases above will Trevor be able to hear a change due to just
> >one stage. Doesn't stop him from posturing dogmatically and foolishly,
> >though.
>
> Doug Self thinks the 5532 is the best. He backs it up with facts and
> measurements.
>
> http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/webbop/opamp.htm

Hopelessly out of date.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> dizzy wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> However, I'd like to see the results of Trevor's evaluation of a chain of
> >> the 5532 op amps that he has blacklisted. Here's the question - how many
> >> stages of 5532 unity gain buffer, operating at a peak signal level of 2
> >> volts, can we cascade before Trevor would reliably hear a differnce. I
> >> suspect that after 100 stages, he might have a chance! For part 2, lets up
> >> the stage gain to 10 dB, and then interpose attenuators between the stages,
> >> so the levels throughout the chain and the output level are still 2 volts.
> >> For parts 3 and 4, let's up the gain again to 20 dB, and finally 40 dB.
> >>
> >> In none of the cases above will Trevor be able to hear a change due to just
> >> one stage. Doesn't stop him from posturing dogmatically and foolishly,
> >> though.
> >
> > Doug Self thinks the 5532 is the best. He backs it up with facts and
> > measurements.
>
> **I see no mention of the AD825. A significantly better OP amp than the
> 5532.
>
> >
> > http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/webbop/opamp.htm
> >
> > 'Course, Trevor might discount what Self thinks, because Self also
> > likes tone controls. 8)
>
> **I have no problem with tone controls which operate in the digital
> domain, nor those (digital types) which can be adjusted via the use of a
> reference and appropriate test equipment.

What's your objection to analogue 'tone controls' ?

Graham

[dizzy]

Eeyore wrote:

>dizzy wrote:
>>
>> Doug Self thinks the 5532 is the best. He backs it up with facts and
>> measurements.
>>
>> http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/webbop/opamp.htm
>
>Hopelessly out of date.

Even if so, it's likely that the 5532's <.001% distortion and 4
nV/rtHz noise is plenty good.

[dizzy]

Eeyore wrote:

>Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> **I have no problem with tone controls which operate in the digital
>> domain, nor those (digital types) which can be adjusted via the use of a
>> reference and appropriate test equipment.
>
>What's your objection to analogue 'tone controls' ?

Don't get him started. He thinks they are totally useless. The fact
that turning a knob can make many recordings sound *way* better is, to
him, not useful. Only "accuracy" is, to him, important.

[Eeyore]

dizzy wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >dizzy wrote:
> >>
> >> Doug Self thinks the 5532 is the best. He backs it up with facts and
> >> measurements.
> >>
> >> http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/webbop/opamp.htm
> >
> >Hopelessly out of date.
>
> Even if so, it's likely that the 5532's <.001% distortion and 4
> nV/rtHz noise is plenty good.

It's an excellent device still and especially so for the joke money you can now
buy them for.

Now check out National's newish LME49710/20/40.
http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LME49710.html

or the LM4562
http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM4562.html

Graham

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> IMO, THAT is the last reason anyone would or should buy this player.
>
> You also said you adore it because of its "accuracy". Have you been to the
> Nanite Detection Clinic lately?

**No need. As all us who have (infected by?) nanites, know that they
self service.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

> >> IMO, THAT is the last reason anyone would or should buy this player.

> > You also said you adore it because of its "accuracy". Have you been to the
> > Nanite Detection Clinic lately?

> **No need. As all us who have (infected by?) nanites, know that they
> self service.

I think you're missing the point.....

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> I forgot...you're used to 6 gallon tanks.

What nonsense is this now ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > > Eeyore wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > It seems to me that what you're experiencing is likely to be the effect
> >> > > > of the filters, not the op-amps in them.
> >> >
> >> > > No way to tell. I'm just saying I don't like it....makes me a little
> >> > > more suspsicious of the active speaker designs like Orion.
> >> >
> >> > I'd suspect you don't like the separation between the sub and the
> >> > full-range speakers.
> >>
> >> You suspect wrongly considering I've lived with that sub and speakers
> >> for years.
> >> I even left the sub off trying to get a handle on the sound changes.
> >> Sound staging went flat and there was this annoying high freq ring to
> >> bells, brushes got all slushy sounding.....literally reminded of
> >> slurpy sucking.
> >>
> >> > In other words it's an acoustic effect you're hearing, not electronic.
> >>
> >> Nope...the acoustic effects of this device should be only bass related
> >> and the changes I didn't like are more high freq.
> >>
> >> But keep plugging away...I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss what I
> >> hear eventually.
> >
> > Maybe there are crap filers in that device then (poorly matched amplitude and
> > phase response for example).?
>
> That's it. Crap filers in the UK

What's the UK got to do with it ?


> claiming phase shifts well into the pass band. Good idea.

You WILL have phase shifts in the pass band. That's a characteristic of analogue
filters (and most digital ones too). I'd look for a poorly matched amplitude
response first though.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote
in message

> **I have no problem with tone controls which operate in
> the digital domain, nor those (digital types) which can
> be adjusted via the use of a reference and appropriate
> test equipment.

Another case of Trevor missing the point - the whole point of tone controls
is adjusting them by ear to make the sound more acceptable to the ear.

I have to admit that I find ordinary audiophile bass and treble tone
controls to be a near-complete waste. If you want to be able to adjust the
sound to make it more acceptable, you really need something like a 4 to 6
band full parametric equalizer.

Parametric equlizers of the conventional type with just three knobs per
section are not suitable for use by people who are not well-trained in their
use. OTOH digital parametric equalizers that display the current frequency
response characteristic of the control set will tend to train people how to
use them.

Let me make this clear - the magic of digital parametric equalizers is not
in the sound, but rather in the more intuitive control facility that they
provide.

Very powerful parametric equalisers are not necessarily expensive, given the
Behringer's DSP 1124.

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message

> Eeyore wrote:
>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> **I have no problem with tone controls which operate in
>>> the digital domain, nor those (digital types) which can
>>> be adjusted via the use of a reference and appropriate
>>> test equipment.
>>
>> What's your objection to analogue 'tone controls' ?
>
> Don't get him started. He thinks they are totally
> useless. The fact that turning a knob can make many
> recordings sound *way* better is, to him, not useful.
> Only "accuracy" is, to him, important.

Ironically, the whole point of tone controls is providing the right amount
of local inaccuracy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote
in message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>> wrote in message
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>>>> But why ?
>>> **You'll need to ask HK that.
>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It
>>>> sounds like pandering to the audiophools to me.
>>> **I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this
>>> thing sound better than high Dollar CD players or not.
>>> That it does (sound better) is beyond doubt.
>>
>> What's beyond doubt is that Trevor lacks what it takes
>> to properly evaluate this device.
>>
>> It probably sounds no different than a $39 DVD player,
>> once you strip away all of the bias, prejudice and hype.
>>
>>
>
> **I suggest you obtain a copy of the latest article
> (October 2007) here:
> http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/index.html
>
> Silcon Chip acquired a range of ceap DVD players and
> compared them to a regular 5 disk CD player. A variety of
> measured and audible problems were encountered with the
> DVD players. Copyright laws prevent me from going much
> further. I suggest you obtain a copy of the article.

I need not pay a cent to read audiophool trash. Stereophile is free online!

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
> in message
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Trevor Wilson" >
>>> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This puppy has full descrete transistor output stages!
>>>>> But why ?
>>>> **You'll need to ask HK that.
>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting that's better than an op-amp ? It
>>>>> sounds like pandering to the audiophools to me.
>>>> **I don't know if the descrete output stage makes this
>>>> thing sound better than high Dollar CD players or not.
>>>> That it does (sound better) is beyond doubt.
>>> What's beyond doubt is that Trevor lacks what it takes
>>> to properly evaluate this device.
>>>
>>> It probably sounds no different than a $39 DVD player,
>>> once you strip away all of the bias, prejudice and hype.
>>>
>>>
>> **I suggest you obtain a copy of the latest article
>> (October 2007) here:
>> http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/index.html
>>
>> Silcon Chip acquired a range of ceap DVD players and
>> compared them to a regular 5 disk CD player. A variety of
>> measured and audible problems were encountered with the
>> DVD players. Copyright laws prevent me from going much
>> further. I suggest you obtain a copy of the article.
>
> I need not pay a cent to read audiophool trash. Stereophile is free online!
>
>

**Silicon Chip is a proper electronics magazine. One which is not prone
to making any proclamations about anything, unless it is bourne out by
actual measured data. Cheap DVD players do not measure well.

I suggest you read the article, BEFORE you make rash statements.

BTW: I find the measurements performed by Stereophile pretty decent.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote
in message

>>> Silcon Chip acquired a range of ceap DVD players and
>>> compared them to a regular 5 disk CD player. A variety
>>> of measured and audible problems were encountered with
>>> the DVD players. Copyright laws prevent me from going
>>> much further. I suggest you obtain a copy of the
>>> article.

>> I need not pay a cent to read audiophool trash.
>> Stereophile is free online!

> **Silicon Chip is a proper electronics magazine. One
> which is not prone to making any proclamations about
> anything, unless it is bourne out by actual measured
> data.

I thought that you said that they did listening tests.

> Cheap DVD players do not measure well.

Depends how cheap.

> I suggest you read the article, BEFORE you make rash
> statements.

I'm still waiting to get a straight answer about Silicon Chip. First you say
they do listening tests, then you say they don't do listening tests.

> BTW: I find the measurements performed by Stereophile
> pretty decent.

Certainly they are better than the listening tests. Unfortunately, they
don't seem to conform to AES standards.

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Oct, 02:08, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


>
> Certainly they are better than the listening tests. Unfortunately, they
> don't seem to conform to AES standards.

Neither do you.

[dizzy]

Eeyore wrote:

>dizzy wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >dizzy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Doug Self thinks the 5532 is the best. He backs it up with facts and
>> >> measurements.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/webbop/opamp.htm
>> >
>> >Hopelessly out of date.
>>
>> Even if so, it's likely that the 5532's <.001% distortion and 4
>> nV/rtHz noise is plenty good.
>
>It's an excellent device still and especially so for the joke money you can now
>buy them for.
>
>Now check out National's newish LME49710/20/40.
>http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LME49710.html
>
>or the LM4562
>http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM4562.html

Hmm... Pretty impressive. And I could drop them right into my
home-built Doug Self Precision Preamp!

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

>>> How is the FF/REW function? Fairly quick and fast (like the old CD
>>> players), or like a DVD player (slow and "burpy")?
>
>**Sorry. I hadn't used that function. In fact, I can't say that I every
>use that function. I have now. It takes around 10 seconds per minute.
>IMO, THAT is the last reason anyone would or should buy this player.

Yes, but I'm curious, because my old CD player (used as transport with
external DAC) fast-fowards so nicely, sounding like chipmonks, and the
FF speed increasing the longer I hold the button.

Most modern CD players, it seems, kind of "skip and burp" in FF mode,
and only at one speed. I speculate that modern players are based-upon
(massively-produced, thus inexpensive) DVD drives, causing this
behavior.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
> in message
>
>>>> Silcon Chip acquired a range of ceap DVD players and
>>>> compared them to a regular 5 disk CD player. A variety
>>>> of measured and audible problems were encountered with
>>>> the DVD players. Copyright laws prevent me from going
>>>> much further. I suggest you obtain a copy of the
>>>> article.
>
>>> I need not pay a cent to read audiophool trash.
>>> Stereophile is free online!
>
>> **Silicon Chip is a proper electronics magazine. One
>> which is not prone to making any proclamations about
>> anything, unless it is bourne out by actual measured
>> data.
>
> I thought that you said that they did listening tests.

**Read what I wrote.

>
>> Cheap DVD players do not measure well.
>
> Depends how cheap.

**$39.00 was the figure bandied around by some. That'll do.

>
>> I suggest you read the article, BEFORE you make rash
>> statements.
>
> I'm still waiting to get a straight answer about Silicon Chip.

**What, precisely, do you want to know? Silicon Chip is, first and
foremost, an electronics magazine. They cater for the usual electronics
hobbiest requirements. Articles range from simple to quite complex
projects and from basic electronic theory, to advanced techniques, along
with articles of interest to others in the business. ie: Automotive
electronics, antique radios and day-to-day service stories are all
included. They also test some consumer and professional electronic devices.


First you say
> they do listening tests, then you say they don't do listening tests.

**Read what I wrote.

>
>> BTW: I find the measurements performed by Stereophile
>> pretty decent.
>
> Certainly they are better than the listening tests. Unfortunately, they
> don't seem to conform to AES standards.

**They're still better than most.

Trevor Wilson

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com