"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 15 Jan 2005 16:46:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the
arguments
here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
"disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and
others
will continue to trust our basic instincts.

Several years ago I conducted a test which the participants believed
to be sighted. They all heard the differences quite distinctly every
time, and had no problem at all identifying the two components under
test.

The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in fact
the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
throughout the test.

So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that there
were no differences to hear.


Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people don't
expect to be lied to.

The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none exist
*IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.

None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.

Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences that
are perceived under different listening conditions.

This is why blind testing really works, and why the results it gives
can be trusted.

Yep, seems logical on the face. But not proven via controlled testing,
especially as regards to something as slippery as open ended evaluation of
audio components.

"I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass. It
is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound and"

And how will you support this assertion? More likely is the rule of ps
enough such that any increase in capacity makes no difference. Either
electrical measurements and/or blind listening test will be support enough
for your assertion. I know, I know, it is a well worn sentimen in audiio
marketing/publishing about the ps and how it makes a difference, show us
in ways external to those claims that can be verified by others not so
self convinced. The third party confirmation is how one gets around the
you have a mind about this and I have a mind and we will not change it by
continued assertion.

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...
I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made
up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct
bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass.
It is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound
and
mid-fi.

It's not me you're arguing with as much as it is the blind testing I've
been involved in. People are very "mental" about what they hear, or
what they *think* they hear. When you know you're comparing a $5,000 CD
player to a $125 player, and you're watching a sales person switch
between the two, it's very easy to "hear" a difference. When you're
forced to sit away from the players and can no longer see which one is
being played, your ability to "hear" those differences simply goes
away. I have very sensitive hearing, and enjoy high-end gear, I'm also
very picky about my sound. And if I could find any solid evidence that
a $5,000 player truly was better than a $125 player, I'd pay the $5k.
But the difference simply isn;t there OR it's not a difference that
your ears can pick up. You're partially fighting medical-science here,
there are simply things that the human ear CANNOT detect. If my dogs
ever learn to speak, I'll ask them if THEY heard a difference. =)

My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the arguments
here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
"disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and others
will continue to trust our basic instincts.

Harry, have you studied what the partial loudness model is made of yet?

My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out
many
significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight

I don't understand what it is you're saying.Your ears and your eyes
don't need to both be "on" to work, and blind testing is the most
reliable way to find out wether or not we actually HEAR any differences
between players.

On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D wrote:

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as
a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

There's been much talk here about the differences between $5k and $500 CD
players. I'd be interested in hearing from those who think there isn't much
audible difference. How low can one go with the low priced unit before
you're not willing to make the same statement?

I own CD players that cost me $9, $10, $25, $30 & $150. The $10 player (a
portable) had many grave design defects; I consider it a failure. But the
other ones sound identical--identical to each other, and identical to a Rega
Planet to which they were compared. Not just to me, but also to other
people with excellent hearing who were strongly motivated to detect a
difference.

Norm

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 15 Jan 2005 16:46:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the
arguments
here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
"disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and
others
will continue to trust our basic instincts.

Several years ago I conducted a test which the participants believed
to be sighted. They all heard the differences quite distinctly every
time, and had no problem at all identifying the two components under
test.

The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in fact
the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
throughout the test.

So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that there
were no differences to hear.


Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people don't
expect to be lied to.

The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none exist
*IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.

None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.

Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences that
are perceived under different listening conditions.

And what this response proves is that believers will find fault with any
test that really IS a test.
It seems to lead to the following equations:

Blind or unknown = stress
stress = no audible difference.

Why either of these should be true remains unexplained.

Coupled with the further proviso that "people don't expect to be lied to,"
and you have a situation where it is impossible to disprove any statement an
audiophile might make.

I've struggled mightily to come up with some valid way of testing claims of
audible differences--a way that's persuasive to all audiophiles. I've
failed. If it really is a test, there's always some objection.

Norm Strong

wrote:
On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D wrote:

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as
a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

There's been much talk here about the differences between $5k and $500 CD
players. I'd be interested in hearing from those who think there isn't much
audible difference. How low can one go with the low priced unit before
you're not willing to make the same statement?

I own CD players that cost me $9, $10, $25, $30 & $150. The $10 player (a
portable) had many grave design defects; I consider it a failure. But the
other ones sound identical--identical to each other, and identical to a Rega
Planet to which they were compared. Not just to me, but also to other
people with excellent hearing who were strongly motivated to detect a
difference.

Norm


I have a Pioneer universal player that costs about $130, and I can't
tell that apart from another much more expensive player *after* I made
sure that the output levels are matched. It is very easy to tell
differences if they don't have the same levels, and I suspect that is
what happens when you listen to them in the showroom.

Mr. Lavo raved about a Panasonic player that sold for less than $100, so
that's another data point.

I also read the Stereophile review on the Apple iPod, and it measured
very well against stand-alone CD players, playing uncompressed files. I
suspect that there may be some detectible degradations in the cheap
portables, though.

wrote:

think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?

I wouldn't say that you're "wrong", I'd say that you're hearing
things
the way you want to hear them, and not the way they actually ARE.

Another possibility is that he is hearing a real difference--the result
of differences in output levels between the two units. If one is even
imperceptibly louder than the other, this could easily affect his
preference for one over the other.

I can't prove this, but I've often suspected that audiophiles
subconsciously tweak the volume control to favor the unit they "want"
to sound better.

bob

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in
fact
the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
throughout the test.

So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that
there
were no differences to hear.


Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people
don't
expect to be lied to.

The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none
exist
*IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.

And isn't this exactly the problem with all sighted evaluations? Any
visual difference, or any known difference between the units under
test, establishes a reason to believe [audible] differences would
exist. You can't reject Don's experiment on this logic without
rejecting every sighted comparison you have ever done.

None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.

Why would we need to prove this?

Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences
that
are perceived under different listening conditions.

Since when is it anyone else's job to disprove your baseless
hypothesis?

This is why blind testing really works, and why the results it
gives
can be trusted.

Yep, seems logical on the face. But not proven via controlled
testing,

Tell that to the folks in the Psychology Department of your local
university. They could use a good laugh.

especially as regards to something as slippery as open ended
evaluation of
audio components.

The reason it's slippery is that it involves not just sound, but also
the mental state of the listener. The whole point of blind testing is
to eliminate--to the extent possible--mental states as a factor.
Designers of audio equipment should want to do this, because they
cannot engineer for mental states.

bob

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 15 Jan 2005 16:17:41 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 1/14/05 3:28 PM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D wrote:

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as
a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

Try the Meridian 800 series. Many would regard it as sheer engineering
overkill, but it *is* designed to be utterly linear, without any 'high
end' trickery to make it sound 'better' than mainstream units.

OK, that is your $5000 player.

More like $10,000, but whatever.

What about the $500 one?

Why mess about with a mere CD player at that price? Go for the Pioneer
'universal' DV-565, and get great sound from almost any variety of
silver disc - plus all the films you can watch! If you insist on a
'pure' CD player, then the Arcam CD-73 is probably as good as it gets
technically.

I'm sorry, but I have that machine (568 here in the USA) as well as a Sony
C222ES. On SACD in particular, there is a substantial difference between
the two in the amount of transparency/ambience retrieval. I have never once
put a SACD on, gone elsewhere and gotten busy and walked back into the room
without being able to identify which machine is playing before I enter the
room. I can do that with some other equipment.

That doesn't mean the 568 does anything terribly wrong...it is actually a
fine-sounding player....it just doesn't quite match the Sony in
transparency. That's one of the things extra design money can buy you. The
222 uses Elna caps (second only to Black Gates in transparency) and separate
power supplies for the digital and analog stages. Those are also the
primary differences between it and the less expensive 775CE it is based
upon...and side by side you can hear the difference.

wrote in message ...
"I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass. It
is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound and"

And how will you support this assertion? More likely is the rule of ps
enough such that any increase in capacity makes no difference. Either
electrical measurements and/or blind listening test will be support enough
for your assertion. I know, I know, it is a well worn sentimen in audiio
marketing/publishing about the ps and how it makes a difference, show us
in ways external to those claims that can be verified by others not so
self convinced. The third party confirmation is how one gets around the
you have a mind about this and I have a mind and we will not change it by
continued assertion.

Yep, I'm still waiting for the confirmation of the test technique. Then
I'll use it. Hasn't been done. In the meanwhile I'll continue to follow my
instincts while being aware of the pitfalls.

"chung" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D wrote:

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good"
as
a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

There's been much talk here about the differences between $5k and $500
CD
players. I'd be interested in hearing from those who think there isn't
much
audible difference. How low can one go with the low priced unit before
you're not willing to make the same statement?

I own CD players that cost me $9, $10, $25, $30 & $150. The $10 player
(a
portable) had many grave design defects; I consider it a failure. But
the
other ones sound identical--identical to each other, and identical to a
Rega
Planet to which they were compared. Not just to me, but also to other
people with excellent hearing who were strongly motivated to detect a
difference.

Norm


I have a Pioneer universal player that costs about $130, and I can't
tell that apart from another much more expensive player *after* I made
sure that the output levels are matched. It is very easy to tell
differences if they don't have the same levels, and I suspect that is
what happens when you listen to them in the showroom.

Mr. Lavo raved about a Panasonic player that sold for less than $100, so
that's another data point.

I raved about it, but that doesn't mean I can't tell it from other players.
I commented on both its transparency and its concommitant "leaness". These
are distinquishing characteristics that set it apart from many other
players. I was most impressed with the transparency, as this is much more
rare in inexpensive players than in more expensive gear. For example, the
Arcam DV-79 @ $1500 has this same level of transparency but without much of
the leaness. And therefore sounds even better.

I also read the Stereophile review on the Apple iPod, and it measured
very well against stand-alone CD players, playing uncompressed files. I
suspect that there may be some detectible degradations in the cheap
portables, though.

On 16 Jan 2005 16:32:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 15 Jan 2005 16:46:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the
arguments
here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
"disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and
others
will continue to trust our basic instincts.

Several years ago I conducted a test which the participants believed
to be sighted. They all heard the differences quite distinctly every
time, and had no problem at all identifying the two components under
test.

The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in fact
the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
throughout the test.

So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that there
were no differences to hear.


Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people don't
expect to be lied to.

The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none exist
*IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.

You miss the point. There was nothing to stop any of these people
saying "I can't hear a difference". There was no requirement put on
them to hear any kind of difference. Simply put - they expected to, so
they did.

None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.


Of course you can hear real differences sighted. What it proves is
that you can hear non-existant differences sighted as well.

Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences that
are perceived under different listening conditions.

This is why blind testing really works, and why the results it gives
can be trusted.

Yep, seems logical on the face. But not proven via controlled testing,
especially as regards to something as slippery as open ended evaluation of
audio components.

The real conclusion is that you can't trust a sighted test. The
results will be whatever you want them to be.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article ,
" wrote:

You didn't expect start an argument, but you wanted to see if anyone
thinks there's a difference so you can tell them they're wrong?


Umm...no. I wanted to see if anyone could actually deny the reality of
the situation and come up with any evidence to support their claims.
The "I thought I heard it, so it's there" rhetoric is faulty.

think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?

I wouldn't say that you're "wrong", I'd say that you're hearing things
the way you want to hear them, and not the way they actually ARE.

Has anyone here been able to id the Arcam CD 23 blind?

Stephen

In article , wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of analysis. The
Arcam has a more advanced DAC and a heftier power supply, plus it's in a
silver box instead of a brown one.

And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
difference between them? Happens all the time.

Frequency response is likely different. Hearing "Elephant Talk" on the
AMC was akin to hearing a completely different mix.

Stephen

In article , wrote:

wrote:

think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?

I wouldn't say that you're "wrong", I'd say that you're hearing
things
the way you want to hear them, and not the way they actually ARE.

Another possibility is that he is hearing a real difference--the result
of differences in output levels between the two units. If one is even
imperceptibly louder than the other, this could easily affect his
preference for one over the other.

Not a switched comparison, so that's not it.

I can't prove this, but I've often suspected that audiophiles
subconsciously tweak the volume control to favor the unit they "want"
to sound better.

I think it's also common to turn up the ugly one to find missing detail.

Stephen

In article ,
" wrote:

You didn't expect start an argument, but you wanted to see if anyone
thinks there's a difference so you can tell them they're wrong?


Umm...no. I wanted to see if anyone could actually deny the reality of
the situation and come up with any evidence to support their claims.
The "I thought I heard it, so it's there" rhetoric is faulty.

You'll notice I didn't use that rhetoric.

think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?

I wouldn't say that you're "wrong", I'd say that you're hearing things
the way you want to hear them, and not the way they actually ARE.

Why would I care? I own both units and use each for different purposes.

Stephen

wrote in message ...
My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out
many
significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight

I don't understand what it is you're saying.Your ears and your eyes
don't need to both be "on" to work, and blind testing is the most
reliable way to find out wether or not we actually HEAR any differences
between players.

I am saying that blind testing has not been verified as to its validity for
hearing some of the subtle differences audiophiles seem to notice. Nor is
this just wishful thinking.

The fact is: hearing is a combination of physical propagation and complex
brain evaluation. Plenty of studies show that different awareness states
and emotional states affect which parts / how the brain interprets data.
When evaluating components, we are trying to judge "musical accuracy"
against some remembered archetypes of what live music sounds like. It is
not at all impossible that when forced into a comparative mode the brain
evaluates sound differently than in a relaxed, listening mode. It is not at
all impossible that such things as a sense of ultimate transparency, a sense
that all is right or not in how equipment handles micro- and macro-
dynamics, etc. may be affected by the test itself. We do know that the
brain is "hard wired" in some cases to evaluate music; we do not know
whether this "hard wiring" is overcome by other senses in doing comparative
evaluation. We do know that blind comparative testing can handle static
loudness differences, static frequency response differences. That is all we
really know. The validation for use of these test techniques, borrowed from
eudiometry, for general open-ended evaluation of audio gear has not been
done. The assumption that it is valid is just that...an assumption. And
the typical response to these objections is that validation is not needed,
since loudness and frequency response explain everything anyway.

I for one do not buy it...until such time as the testing has been
specifically validated with regard to these concerns, I and many others will
simply follow our instincts that not everything we hear is an illusion.

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in
fact
the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
throughout the test.

So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that
there
were no differences to hear.


Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people
don't
expect to be lied to.

The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none
exist
*IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.

And isn't this exactly the problem with all sighted evaluations? Any
visual difference, or any known difference between the units under
test, establishes a reason to believe [audible] differences would
exist. You can't reject Don's experiment on this logic without
rejecting every sighted comparison you have ever done.


Yes, except there is a big difference when evaluating, lets say, a known
expensive and well-regarded piece of equipment vs. a cheapo, versus trying
to ascertain differences between two different pieces of gear that are
roughly of same value and manufacturing quality. There may be a bias
towards hearing differences where none exist, but that bias is not likely to
be so strong as to override an ability to hear real differences, if that is
the goal.

As a specific example, I recently bought a used power amp by a manufacturer
based on my satisfaction with another piece of gear from the same range by
that same manufactur. It was hopefully to replace a piece of gear that I
had been relatively happy with, but I felt was slightly lacking in a
specific regard. When I got the unit, I pulled out a few "test" disks and
substitued the units back and forth, playing and replaying sections from the
disks. My overall evaluation was that the units sounded essentially alike
in frequency response and speaker control, and the new unit had the
characteristic I had been looking for (also good). So I was predisposed to
keep/like the unit. I put it in the system and used it as I worked at the
computer for a week...but I noticed that I became tired of listening and
slightly irritated after several hours..that had never happened with the old
unit. Switched it back in, went another week, no problem. Put the "new"
unit back in, another few days...same irritation problem. Back in went the
old...no problem..and it is staying there and I am selling the new unit. If
anything my expectation bias was that I would like the new unit, and the
comparative testing tended to support this. But clearly long term there is
a problem and it is a piece of gear I cannot live with. If I had "blind"
tested, I might have concluded the units sounded the same (they were that
close) or that the new unit sounded slightly different (and probably better)
since it clearly has the characteristic I was after. It clearly would not
have shown anything about the long term irritation that has caused me to
reject the unit.

None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.

Why would we need to prove this?


Because there is a tendency here to assume that anybody who hears
differences is kidding themselves, and that most likely there is no
difference unless we are talking about phono cartridges or loudspeakers.
That "standard" is applied to turntables, tonearms, tuners, CD players,
amplifiers almost without discrimination.


Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences
that
are perceived under different listening conditions.

Since when is it anyone else's job to disprove your baseless
hypothesis?


Well, you haven't proved it baseless. But you don't have to prove it, and I
don't have to accept your preference for blind testing.


This is why blind testing really works, and why the results it
gives
can be trusted.

Yep, seems logical on the face. But not proven via controlled
testing,

Tell that to the folks in the Psychology Department of your local
university. They could use a good laugh.


Come on. We've gone over this before. Nothing proven that specifically
applies to some of the esoterica of audio component evaluation.

especially as regards to something as slippery as open ended
evaluation of
audio components.

The reason it's slippery is that it involves not just sound, but also
the mental state of the listener. The whole point of blind testing is
to eliminate--to the extent possible--mental states as a factor.
Designers of audio equipment should want to do this, because they
cannot engineer for mental states.

Nice if you ignore the fact that the test itself changes the mental state.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article , wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of analysis. The
Arcam has a more advanced DAC and a heftier power supply, plus it's in a
silver box instead of a brown one.

And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
difference between them? Happens all the time.

Frequency response is likely different. Hearing "Elephant Talk" on the
AMC was akin to hearing a completely different mix.


In general the newer Arcams seem to have a "house sound" that favors a wide
soundstage, bright and clear transparency, extended bass, but a slightly
lean mid-bass. This sets them slightly apart from most CD players that
sound a bit "darker". Why this is so I do not know.

Ah, but that's what most people who buy those magazines want to read.
Atkinson and Pearson would starve if they tried to satisfy the likes of
you!

Well then I guess the biggest difference between me and most people is
that I don't need a magazine reviewer to do my ear's job for me. I can
tell what sounds like what all on my own.

hasenpfeffer wrote:
I have never quite understood the philosophy behind $5K players. They
usually are very heavy, shock absorption everywhere, heavy heavy
transport, solid mechanisms, exotic materials and what have you. A
lot of money is being spent on a superior design with, as far as I
can tell, the goal to read the CD without any bit errors. And that's
fine. But, wouldn't it be cheaper and better to take a 48x CD rom
drive, read the material a few times as soon as the CD is inserted,
compare the digital data, error check and what have you, store the
data in memory which is not prone to errors due to vibrations and
play it back from a memory buffer? Especially when taking a fast CD
Rom, the data can be read many times and compared and checked and
errors can be eliminated while the CD is playing. No need to have a
real time stream that can have errors directly from the optical
pick-up element in the CD player to the output of the DAC. The player
could even let you know exactly when there is a read-out error on the
CD that can't be corrected. I would say a design like that is
superior to an on-the-fly processing type CD player, and can achieve
lower bit error rates, most likely completely eliminating errors
while under $1K, even with enough RAM to store the entire CD content.


This is what ExactAudioCopy does, a free downloadable PC-program. To find
the right settings I experimented with read speeds and error correction by
multiple reading. My results with a cheap AOpen52x burner (27 Euro) were
very promising. Even at maximum speed single read, on almost all CDs that i
tried, there was not a single bit different from 4x read at 4times speed, so
there doesn't seem the need for multiple reads. One home-burnt CDRom of bad
quality media would make a difference, in the fast read mode there were
several "jumps" and muted passages, 3 titles were drpped etc., which still
came out on the paranoid setting.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D wrote:

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good"
as
a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

There's been much talk here about the differences between $5k and $500
CD
players. I'd be interested in hearing from those who think there isn't
much
audible difference. How low can one go with the low priced unit before
you're not willing to make the same statement?

I own CD players that cost me $9, $10, $25, $30 & $150. The $10 player
(a
portable) had many grave design defects; I consider it a failure. But
the
other ones sound identical--identical to each other, and identical to a
Rega
Planet to which they were compared. Not just to me, but also to other
people with excellent hearing who were strongly motivated to detect a
difference.

Norm


I have a Pioneer universal player that costs about $130, and I can't
tell that apart from another much more expensive player *after* I made
sure that the output levels are matched. It is very easy to tell
differences if they don't have the same levels, and I suspect that is
what happens when you listen to them in the showroom.

Mr. Lavo raved about a Panasonic player that sold for less than $100, so
that's another data point.

I raved about it, but that doesn't mean I can't tell it from other players.
I commented on both its transparency and its concommitant "leaness". These
are distinquishing characteristics that set it apart from many other
players. I was most impressed with the transparency, as this is much more
rare in inexpensive players than in more expensive gear. For example, the
Arcam DV-79 @ $1500 has this same level of transparency but without much of
the leaness. And therefore sounds even better.

Sorry, I forgot that every CD player sounds different to you .

On the other hand, the fact that you raved about a $100 player means
that it is possible to implement a good power supply in an inexpensive
player, no? So you really can't say that the difference between
"high-end" and "mid-fi" is in the power supply which shows up in "upper
bass or lower midrange", since obviously you find the $100 Panasonic as
good or better than some much more expensive players.


I also read the Stereophile review on the Apple iPod, and it measured
very well against stand-alone CD players, playing uncompressed files. I
suspect that there may be some detectible degradations in the cheap
portables, though.

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?


Who knows? What design differences could be relevant to the sound
differences you claim to hear?


If one unit has gross FR variations or audible and unpleasant distortion
artifacts due to its design then I guess you could be correct in your
thinking. I have heard tell of designs where the idea was to roll off
high frequencies, but I'm guessing that very few CD players exhibit this
kind of gross anomaly. In any case, anyone paying extra for missing
highs is being cheated; they'd be better off with something cheaper and,
instead, using tone controls if they have them.


On the other hand, I once read a review in one of the 'high-end' mags:
an amplifier where the 'designer' claimed that changing a bit of
internal wiring on the capacitors (from a few inches of Monster Cable to
a few inches of something else) made a 'big' difference in the amp's
'sound'. If that is an example of the kind of design difference you
mean then I'd say you are probably wrong in your thinking.


michael

Harry Lavo wrote:

snip

Because there is a tendency here to assume that anybody who hears
differences is kidding themselves, and that most likely there is no
difference unless we are talking about phono cartridges or
loudspeakers.
That "standard" is applied to turntables, tonearms, tuners, CD
players,
amplifiers almost without discrimination.

Not at all true. Turntables and tuners can often be distinguished. Amps
and CDPs generally not, but that doesn't mean that people who claim to
hear differences between them are kidding themselves. It takes careful
level-matching to make two such units sound identical, and I'll bet
most audiophiles don't whip out a voltmeter every time they try out a
new component. So the differences they hear are real; they just aren't
reflective of the sound quality of the two components.

bob

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money."
Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of analysis.

In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
"design," aren't you?

The
Arcam has a more advanced DAC and a heftier power supply, plus it's
in a
silver box instead of a brown one.

It's the silver that does it, you know!

And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
difference between them? Happens all the time.

Frequency response is likely different. Hearing "Elephant Talk" on
the
AMC was akin to hearing a completely different mix.

In that case, you should definitely junk it. There's no excuse for FR
problems in a CD player.

bob

Another possibility is that he is hearing a real difference--the
result
of differences in output levels between the two units. If one is even
imperceptibly louder than the other, this could easily affect his
preference for one over the other.

Although I can't deny this as a possibility, I've heard enough units to
believe that there isn't any difference as far as levels are concerned
between any 2 players for there to be an overtly audible difference
between the two.

I can't prove this, but I've often suspected that audiophiles
subconsciously tweak the volume control to favor the unit they "want"
to sound better.

Well, if someone is "tweaking" equipment somehwere along the line than
it invalidates the test, that's as good as cheating.

And isn't this exactly the problem with all sighted evaluations? Any
visual difference, or any known difference between the units under
test, establishes a reason to believe [audible] differences would
exist.

This is what I found. Regardless of which connections we were using
(analof or optical), when we switched between players without the
listeners knowing which players we were using, they couldn't identify
ANY sonic differences. During a 2nd phase, we told the people which
player we were using, and they suddenly developed the ability to detect
differences because they knew when we were using a more expensive
player. During a third phase, we kept the listeners blind, and would
start with the least expensive player...we would then tell the people
that we were switching to a considerablly more expensive player, but
would in fact simply re-start the SAME unit, and they a few of them
claimed to hear differences! That was the breaker for me, it became
plain and obvious that people were "hearing" differences when they
knew, or at least *thought* that we had switched players.

And isn't this exactly the problem with all sighted evaluations? Any
visual difference, or any known difference between the units under
test, establishes a reason to believe [audible] differences would
exist.

And if you're the type of person who's mental status always makes it
seem as though the more expensive unit is really producing better
sound, then you'll always want the more expensive unit. I'm personally
willing to except the limitations of the human ear.

In article , wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money."
Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of analysis.

In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
"design," aren't you?

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to
build one.

The
Arcam has a more advanced DAC and a heftier power supply, plus it's
in a
silver box instead of a brown one.

It's the silver that does it, you know!

But of course.

And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
difference between them? Happens all the time.

Frequency response is likely different. Hearing "Elephant Talk" on
the AMC was akin to hearing a completely different mix.

In that case, you should definitely junk it. There's no excuse for FR
problems in a CD player.

I've been using it as a transport in another system instead.

Stephen

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article , wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b, although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more money." Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of analysis. The
Arcam has a more advanced DAC and a heftier power supply, plus it's in a
silver box instead of a brown one.

And while we're at it, how do you know you aren't just imaging a
difference between them? Happens all the time.

Frequency response is likely different. Hearing "Elephant Talk" on the
AMC was akin to hearing a completely different mix.


In general the newer Arcams seem to have a "house sound" that favors a wide
soundstage, bright and clear transparency, extended bass, but a slightly
lean mid-bass. This sets them slightly apart from most CD players that
sound a bit "darker". Why this is so I do not know.

The AMC had more "whomp" in the mid-bass, but generally seemed more shut
in and less transparent. I wonder if leanness in one and a bump in the
other coincided to make for a bigger seeming difference.

Stephen

On 18 Jan 2005 02:22:07 GMT, "
wrote:

Another possibility is that he is hearing a real difference--the result
of differences in output levels between the two units. If one is even
imperceptibly louder than the other, this could easily affect his
preference for one over the other.

Although I can't deny this as a possibility, I've heard enough units to
believe that there isn't any difference as far as levels are concerned
between any 2 players for there to be an overtly audible difference
between the two.

Your belief is without substance. It is well known that, while 2V rms
is the 'standard' output for CD players, real values from player to
player vary by up to 6dB. It is generally acknowledged that a 0.5dB
difference will be heard by most listeners - but as a difference in
*quality*, not loudness.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D wrote:

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as
good"
as
a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

There's been much talk here about the differences between $5k and
$500
CD
players. I'd be interested in hearing from those who think there
isn't
much
audible difference. How low can one go with the low priced unit
before
you're not willing to make the same statement?

I own CD players that cost me $9, $10, $25, $30 & $150. The $10
player
(a
portable) had many grave design defects; I consider it a failure.
But
the
other ones sound identical--identical to each other, and identical to
a
Rega
Planet to which they were compared. Not just to me, but also to
other
people with excellent hearing who were strongly motivated to detect a
difference.

Norm


I have a Pioneer universal player that costs about $130, and I can't
tell that apart from another much more expensive player *after* I made
sure that the output levels are matched. It is very easy to tell
differences if they don't have the same levels, and I suspect that is
what happens when you listen to them in the showroom.

Mr. Lavo raved about a Panasonic player that sold for less than $100,
so
that's another data point.

I raved about it, but that doesn't mean I can't tell it from other
players.
I commented on both its transparency and its concommitant "leaness".
These
are distinquishing characteristics that set it apart from many other
players. I was most impressed with the transparency, as this is much
more
rare in inexpensive players than in more expensive gear. For example,
the
Arcam DV-79 @ $1500 has this same level of transparency but without much
of
the leaness. And therefore sounds even better.

Sorry, I forgot that every CD player sounds different to you .

Not all, but many do.


On the other hand, the fact that you raved about a $100 player means
that it is possible to implement a good power supply in an inexpensive
player, no? So you really can't say that the difference between
"high-end" and "mid-fi" is in the power supply which shows up in "upper
bass or lower midrange", since obviously you find the $100 Panasonic as
good or better than some much more expensive players.



Actually what I said was I suspected that the unit was fueled by powerDAC's.
The leaness in the bass may very well be related to power supply.

snip

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more
money."
Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be
audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of
analysis.

In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
"design," aren't you?

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to

build one.

Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

bob

In article , wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I think my Arcam CD23 FMJ sounds better than my AMC CD8b,
although I
ascribe the difference to design, not to magic or "more
money."
Am I
wrong?

You might be. What part of the latter's design do you think is
subpar,
and how do you know that it is sufficiently subpar to be
audible?

I'd have to be a designer or engineer to make that kind of
analysis.

In that case, you're on shaky ground ascribing the difference to
"design," aren't you?

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to

build one.

Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible. I find it more
reassuring when an engineer with a respectable audio track record points
out things that can go wrong, like the pro-audio guy who found that
cheap dvd players had clipped outputs due to poorly implemented DACs.

One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from
dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:


Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible. I find it more
reassuring when an engineer with a respectable audio track record points
out things that can go wrong, like the pro-audio guy who found that
cheap dvd players had clipped outputs due to poorly implemented DACs.

That would show up clearly as THD (total harmonic distortion) in
measurements. If you were to look at measurements of CD players, you
will have a hard time finding any player with significant distortion,
say above 0.05%. The DVD player you mentioned, if indeed your pro-audio
guy was correct, is a very rare exception.


One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from
dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

Question, of course, is why would the other CD player(AMC) be noticeably
worse in a listening test. Looking at the specs, there is nothing that
indicates it would not be sonically accurate. Certainly the Burr-Brown
96/24 DAC's are very good performers.

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible
consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible.

I wouldn't take the word of one engineer either--unless the alternative
was to take the word of a non-engineer! But every effect has a cause,
and if you can't find any expert anywhere who can explain the cause,
it's time to consider the possibility that you're misreading the
effect.

I find it more
reassuring when an engineer with a respectable audio track record
points
out things that can go wrong, like the pro-audio guy who found that
cheap dvd players had clipped outputs due to poorly implemented DACs.

Missed that. Can you provide a reference?

One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from

dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

There are presumably many ways to design DACs. What's debatable is
whether one way is enough better than another way to have audible
consequences.

bob

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to
build one.

You picked an unfortunate example. Grand pianos reached the zenith of their
design 100 years ago. Since that time, there have been almost no changes
that could be fairly described as important. Indeed, a minor change in the
way the strings are coupled to the bridge was the basis for an entirely new
piano company in Australia. One could swap the entire work force of 2
different piano companies, and manufacturing would resume with scarcely a
missed beat.

Norm Strong

It is well known that, while 2V rms
is the 'standard' output for CD players, real values from player to
player vary by up to 6dB. It is generally acknowledged that a 0.5dB
difference will be heard by most listeners - but as a difference in
*quality*, not loudness.

I've heard 40 or 50 different CD players and couldn't - in blind
testing conditions - identify one from the other. Therefore my belief
has some substance to it. If there are players with boosted output
levels, I have not heard them. The Eclipse deck I use in my car, which
is also my CD transport, has 8 volt pre-amp outputs and is mated to a
high end Zapco amp. The 8 volt pre-amp outputs are said to be cleaner
than the 4 volt units used on MOST decks, although in all honesty, I
don't think they make any audible difference. Turning up the gain on my
amp makes an audible difference, but it has nothing to do with SOUND
QUALITY it's just like volume boosting. If CD manufacturers are using
some sort of gain to make their players louder, then it's a cheat, and
although in those instances it will make a player sound DIFFERENT
(maybe) it's not making the player sound BETTER. Furthur proof that
there is NO audible difference between players unless something is
WILLFULLY tampered with.

In article ,
wrote:

I assume pianos are built to different designs without knowing how to
build one.

You picked an unfortunate example. Grand pianos reached the zenith of their
design 100 years ago. Since that time, there have been almost no changes
that could be fairly described as important. Indeed, a minor change in the
way the strings are coupled to the bridge was the basis for an entirely new
piano company in Australia. One could swap the entire work force of 2
different piano companies, and manufacturing would resume with scarcely a
missed beat.

100 years ago one could buy an American Steinway (the "zenith" to which
you refer), or a piano with a Viennese action, or a straight-strung
Erard with under-dampers.

Perhaps you are unaware of the piano-copying cottage industry. With
enough money and enough lead time, one can purchase a copy or a
restoration of a piano built in the 19th or 18th centuries.

Unfortunate, indeed.

Stephen

In article , wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Fair enough. But I think it is significant that most of the
participants here who are engineers seem to think that the design
differences between CD players tend not to have audible
consequences. I
would trust their judgment over yours or mine.

I'd hate to be stuck with unsatisfactory gear because some engineer
somewhere doesn't think audible consequences possible.

I wouldn't take the word of one engineer either--unless the alternative
was to take the word of a non-engineer! But every effect has a cause,
and if you can't find any expert anywhere who can explain the cause,
it's time to consider the possibility that you're misreading the
effect.

"Trust me: I'm an EE," that kind of thing? Sounds like arguing from
authority, especially if I'm told I'm not qualified to have an opinion.

I find it more
reassuring when an engineer with a respectable audio track record
points
out things that can go wrong, like the pro-audio guy who found that
cheap dvd players had clipped outputs due to poorly implemented DACs.

Missed that. Can you provide a reference?

It was Ken Kantor on rec.audio.pro, about two years ago.

One selling point of the Arcam is the RingDAC, which was sourced from

dCS, who may be presumed to know something about design.

There are presumably many ways to design DACs. What's debatable is
whether one way is enough better than another way to have audible
consequences.

I doubt I could tell an Elgar from my CD23.

Stephen