Features! Repeat modes, playing a programmed playlists.

--
The best is yet to come
V

"hoarse with no name" wrote in message
...

Cheap disc players have digital output and expensive AV receivers have
good DACs, so what is the purpose of buying an expensive CD player?

Vivek wrote:
Features! Repeat modes, playing a programmed playlists.

and all-important bragging rights




--

-S

"hoarse with no name" wrote in message
...

Cheap disc players have digital output and expensive AV receivers have
good DACs, so what is the purpose of buying an expensive CD player?

Who has a 'AV Receiver" ? Not me - a CD player and power amp.

FWIW I love the Sony players with the direct entry 20 track buttons. Use
them all the time. On a purely fumctional level...

geoff

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:05:34 -0700, hoarse with no name wrote:



Cheap disc players have digital output and expensive AV receivers have
good DACs, so what is the purpose of buying an expensive CD player?

Having a very pretty although mostly empty cabinet made out of expensive
machined materials and with expensive looking knobs. Makes wrapping that $25
sony drive, the $5 worth of DACs achieve that special feeling of pride that
comes from having spent too much. Of course, everybody knows that caps made
of iguana spit achieve performance levels never seen with less expensive caps.
If it is made of esoteric materials, it *must* sound better.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:49:51 GMT, AZ Nomad
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:05:34 -0700, hoarse with no name wrote:

Cheap disc players have digital output and expensive AV receivers have
good DACs, so what is the purpose of buying an expensive CD player?

Having a very pretty although mostly empty cabinet made out of expensive
machined materials and with expensive looking knobs. Makes wrapping that $25
sony drive, the $5 worth of DACs achieve that special feeling of pride that
comes from having spent too much. Of course, everybody knows that caps made
of iguana spit achieve performance levels never seen with less expensive caps.
If it is made of esoteric materials, it *must* sound better.

Yes, but coffee made from weasel ****? You have to draw the line
*somewhere*!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

??? Depends on your taste. I like to play a single song or selected songs
ONLY and CONTINOUSLY. I was having an LG player which couldn't do it. The
newer pioneer can.
--
The best is yet to come
V

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
and all-important bragging rights

Vivek wrote:
??? Depends on your taste. I like to play a single song or selected songs
ONLY and CONTINOUSLY.

People like you frighten me.

I was having an LG player which couldn't do it. The
newer pioneer can.

Well, that's why I wrote *and*.



"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
and all-important bragging rights



--

-S

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:49:51 GMT, AZ Nomad wrote:

Of course, everybody knows that caps made
of iguana spit achieve performance levels never seen with less expensive caps.
If it is made of esoteric materials, it *must* sound better.


Yes, but coffee made from weasel ****? You have to draw the line
*somewhere*!

I draw the line at civet ****. Weasels are beyond the pale.

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:05:34 -0700, hoarse with no name
wrote:

Cheap disc players have digital output and expensive AV receivers have
good DACs, so what is the purpose of buying an expensive CD player?

Don't assume your expensive receiver will have a better DAC than your
cheap CD player. Consumer electronics are about features and
styling, not about quality.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:05:34 -0700, hoarse with no name
wrote:

Cheap disc players have digital output and expensive AV receivers have
good DACs, so what is the purpose of buying an expensive CD player?

Don't assume your expensive receiver will have a better DAC than your
cheap CD player. Consumer electronics are about features and
styling, not about quality.

Likewise let us not fall into the "they ALL sound the same no matter how
cheap" trap.

I participated in a long thread about this recently, in which I merely tried
to make the point that a good quality piece might, just might sound better
than a piece of crap.

Just about got my ass handed to me. Eventually I got some vindication of my
viewpoint, but not before I was accused of merely positing that something
was better merely because it was more expensive, something I never, ever
said.

It would behoove us all to take matters such as build quality and
manufacturer's pedigrees into our buying decisions, not so we can spend more
money just to stroke our egos, but to encourage manufacturers not to cut
corners where it might well make audible differences, just because they
feel, "all Americans care about is price - they can't hear the difference
anyway" which, trust me - is exactly how most foreign manufacturers feel
about Americans nowadays anyway.

Once again, before the flames start, I am NOT saying that something is
better simply because it costs more; merely that if cost is cut enough, and
enough corners cut, there will eventually be an audible price to be paid.
This is simple reality, folks.

Mark Z.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:17:48 GMT, "Mark D. Zacharias"
wrote:


"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:05:34 -0700, hoarse with no name
wrote:

Cheap disc players have digital output and expensive AV receivers have
good DACs, so what is the purpose of buying an expensive CD player?

Don't assume your expensive receiver will have a better DAC than your
cheap CD player. Consumer electronics are about features and
styling, not about quality.

Likewise let us not fall into the "they ALL sound the same no matter how
cheap" trap.

I participated in a long thread about this recently, in which I merely tried
to make the point that a good quality piece might, just might sound better
than a piece of crap.

Just about got my ass handed to me. Eventually I got some vindication of my
viewpoint, but not before I was accused of merely positing that something
was better merely because it was more expensive, something I never, ever
said.

It would behoove us all to take matters such as build quality and
manufacturer's pedigrees into our buying decisions, not so we can spend more
money just to stroke our egos, but to encourage manufacturers not to cut
corners where it might well make audible differences, just because they
feel, "all Americans care about is price - they can't hear the difference
anyway" which, trust me - is exactly how most foreign manufacturers feel
about Americans nowadays anyway.

Once again, before the flames start, I am NOT saying that something is
better simply because it costs more; merely that if cost is cut enough, and
enough corners cut, there will eventually be an audible price to be paid.
This is simple reality, folks.

I don't think I've heard anyone argue against that. The proof of the
pudding is of course in the listening. I have certainly never
suggested that there isn't a minimum standard below which
imperfections become audible - it just isn't at the level of say the
Meridian 588. That's not to say it isn't nice to have a 588 and *know*
that it's about as good as can be made - just that if you're working
on a limited budget, you'd be far better with a much cheaper player,
and more expensive speakers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in
message t

merely
that if cost is cut enough, and enough corners cut, there
will eventually be an audible price to be paid. This is
simple reality, folks.

I can think of several real-world examples of cost-cutting
that has advanced to such a degree - the audio sections of
CDROM drives, and the audio interfaces incorporated in most
motherboards. Over the years they have improved from being
simply horrid, to sounding good enough that hearing the
difference between them and perfection might on occasion,
even be an interesting ABX test.