I am entirely new to this newsgroup so please make allowances in that
because I need your advice rather quickly I have not had time to read
through and familiarise myself with any rules or indeed your style of
questions allowed. As you will see below, I am currently being allow to
audition a Quad 99 CD Player and have to give it back tomorrow so hence
the hurry.

I am a professional musician and an enthusiast, having just converted my
double garage into an IT/Music Listening Room. I then decided my old
Rotel 685BX CD Player needs replacing. Up to recently I did not feel the
need until several of my friends bought a Naim CDX2 CD Player and I
having heard it I wanted one straight away. I was simply knocked out by
the presence and clarity of the sound it helped to produce, (or did it),
and indeed I can only describe the silence between the notes as a "black
hole".
Since then someone else has said I should get an Audio Research, (or was
it Musical Fidelity), and then I found a Quad 99 CD Player in my local
Hi Fi shop which does not do a lot of high end stuff except for Quad. I
then looked at the reviews for the Quad 99 and they all seemed to say
that it was the best CD Player some of them had heard, (or words to that
effect). They came across as very knowledgeable and sincere in their
views in that, though they did express some minor faults with the unit
and had tried most other CD players, they had not expected the Quad to
offer any challenge to them but were astounded at what they heard. Those
that had tried several of the big names said that this player was half
as good again, some praise indeed.
Now I know each individual has his or her preference for a particular
sound so reviews are only a guide etc., but still there is usually a
consensus of opinion that can be very useful when choosing a system. One
of my Naim owner friends said when he heard that the Quad 99 was only
£1000 that you more or less got what you paid for and that in simply
could not be as good as his £2500 Naim CDX2, so where do you go from
here.
I have now got a Quad 99 CD player on a brief trial and I have accepted
the advice not to use the built in pre-amp which is not good but to
channel it directly to a power amp. I have therefore fed it into my old
Musical Fidelity MVT and thence to my Meridan M3's Active Speakers and I
am currently evaluating the result.
I have had some astonishing comments in another Newsgroup that the CD
Player does not affect the sound, I simply cannot believe that as I
heard the Naim with my own ears and it was wonderful. I have had others
say spend the money on CD's and also to look to the DAC part of it which
is the part that makes the difference and I am afraid that is beyond my
technical expertise to decide. One person said go for a Marantz
Professional player that has other facilities not available on the so
called hi end players but I have never rated Marantz an one of the big
boys in hi end audio, correct me.
I am now more confused than ever and yet I want to install a really
superior system in my dedicated listening room that is worthy of a
classical music lover, I would appreciate any advice given with
gratitude.



I would greatly appreciate a little guidance from some other Audiophiles
out there with my choice of CD Player.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...

snip

I am now more confused than ever and yet I want to install a really
superior system in my dedicated listening room that is worthy of a
classical music lover, I would appreciate any advice given with
gratitude.


My advice is simple. Play it the way you normally would (I assume through
the preamp). If you like it as much as you did the Naim, buy it. If not,
look for a used Naim. You have to live with it, and you are the ultimate
judge. Nobody else can (or should) decide for you. Discount your friend's
advice: sometimes you do and sometimes you don't get what you pay for.

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...

I am a professional musician and an enthusiast, having just converted my
double garage into an IT/Music Listening Room. I then decided my old Rotel
685BX CD Player needs replacing. Up to recently I did not feel the need
until several of my friends bought a Naim CDX2 CD Player and I having
heard it I wanted one straight away. I was simply knocked out by the
presence and clarity of the sound it helped to produce, (or did it), and
indeed I can only describe the silence between the notes as a "black
hole".

Just to clarify matters, how do you "listen" to a CD player? Do you mean
that you listened to your friend's system, containing a Naim CDX2, and it
sounded wonderful? Or did they bring it to your house and you swapped it
with the Rotel?

I'm asking these questions because the difference in sound quality between
CD players is generally so slight that it's a major effort to hear it at
all. If you were "knocked out" by someone else's system, chances are
something other than the CD player was responsible.

Norm Strong

I can understand your confusion after reading the replies on the
classical music recordings group. At the present time I have a Marantz
CD 63SE and a CD 67SE (which I alternate every month) going into a MSB
Link D/A converter. I also have stored away Sony and Nakamichi CD
players. I have also listened to the Marantz players from their analog
outputs. I cannot hear ANY difference in the sound with any of these
setups. The Marantz units have better features (remotes etc) but no
better sound. The Nakamichi sounds the same as the others but has a
very poor remote control as far as selection of tracks is concerned.
The Sony and Nakamichi units don't have digital outputs which is why I
am not using them. If you are intent on spending money, spend it where
it counts - speakers or room treatment. A sub woofer can also make a
big improvement.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

In message ,
writes
"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...

I am a professional musician and an enthusiast, having just converted my
double garage into an IT/Music Listening Room. I then decided my old Rotel
685BX CD Player needs replacing. Up to recently I did not feel the need
until several of my friends bought a Naim CDX2 CD Player and I having
heard it I wanted one straight away. I was simply knocked out by the
presence and clarity of the sound it helped to produce, (or did it), and
indeed I can only describe the silence between the notes as a "black
hole".

Hi Norman and first of all, thank you for replying to my post.
Just to clarify matters, how do you "listen" to a CD player? Do you mean
that you listened to your friend's system, containing a Naim CDX2, and it
sounded wonderful? Or did they bring it to your house and you swapped it
with the Rotel?
No, I have listened to it in my friends house several times and also in
several other of his friends who have bough the selfsame unit. My friend
Eugene uses it with a Naim amp and most if not all of his other "boxes"
are also Naim, in fact for him, "the Naims the game", (sorry).

I'm asking these questions because the difference in sound quality between
CD players is generally so slight that it's a major effort to hear it at
all. If you were "knocked out" by someone else's system, chances are
something other than the CD player was responsible.
This has come as a surprise to me so in fact my Quad at half the price
may not be so bad at all when I consider that even with my present
system loudspeakers, (active Meridan 3's) which are a few years old, it
sounds much better than my Rotel, how much better I cannot say. I feel
though if I upgrade the rest of my system I feel that I will then hear
the full benefit. However, I am not into the technical end of things but
can match most on the musical side.
Finally, I would like an opinion of any of your posters to this NG who
own or have heard the Quad 99, (in a system), as to their opinion of it.
Again, thank you for your time and I hope I have answered your
questions.

Norm Strong


--
Derrick Fawsitt

In message , Harry Lavo
writes
"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...

snip

I am now more confused than ever and yet I want to install a really
superior system in my dedicated listening room that is worthy of a
classical music lover, I would appreciate any advice given with
gratitude.


My advice is simple. Play it the way you normally would (I assume through
the preamp). If you like it as much as you did the Naim, buy it. If not,
look for a used Naim. You have to live with it, and you are the ultimate
judge. Nobody else can (or should) decide for you. Discount your friend's
advice: sometimes you do and sometimes you don't get what you pay for.

Thank you Harry, I have had my eyes opened here already and its just my
first time to post. I am so active with live music and other things that
I have never bothered to upgrade my system. There are others out there
who are only fractionally as interested in music as I am who would leave
me standing with their audio systems. I have now at this stage of my
life built this dedicated listening room and I so much want to "get it
right" from the start, possibly with the help of some new friends here,
thank you again.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
I am entirely new to this newsgroup so please make allowances in that
because I need your advice rather quickly I have not had time to read
through and familiarise myself with any rules or indeed your style of
questions allowed. As you will see below, I am currently being allow to
audition a Quad 99 CD Player and have to give it back tomorrow so hence
the hurry.

I am a professional musician and an enthusiast, having just converted my
double garage into an IT/Music Listening Room. I then decided my old
Rotel 685BX CD Player needs replacing. Up to recently I did not feel the
need until several of my friends bought a Naim CDX2 CD Player and I
having heard it I wanted one straight away. I was simply knocked out by
the presence and clarity of the sound it helped to produce, (or did it),
and indeed I can only describe the silence between the notes as a "black
hole".

I have had some astonishing comments in another Newsgroup that the CD
Player does not affect the sound, I simply cannot believe that as I
heard the Naim with my own ears and it was wonderful.

Did you hear the name in a different room, on a different system, than
your current one? If so, how do you know the ifferences you heard were
due to the CD player?

And too , you say you have just set up a new room for your own listening.

I would suggest before throwing money at a new CD player, that you
determine it's not *room effects* that are influencing your decision.
The best way to do this is to borrow one of your friends' CD players and
set up a blind comparison.

On 22 May 2005 19:33:51 GMT, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

Finally, I would like an opinion of any of your posters to this NG who
own or have heard the Quad 99, (in a system), as to their opinion of it.

The Quad is a fine CD player, as are most others these days. You are
seriously unlikely to achieve better sound with *any* other player, no
matter how exotic in appearance, name badge or price.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I think Derrick has made up his mind to get a new (expensive) CD player.
He is going to be very disappointed when he finds out it doesn't sound
any different (maybe louder but not different) than the one he already
has. I have tried many players since my Sony CDP 101 trying to
"correct" what the recording and mastering engineers have screwed up.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
I am entirely new to this newsgroup so please make allowances in that
because I need your advice rather quickly I have not had time to read
through and familiarise myself with any rules or indeed your style of
questions allowed. As you will see below, I am currently being allow to
audition a Quad 99 CD Player and have to give it back tomorrow so hence
the hurry.

One must be able to find the "Best" overall CD Player at BestBuy.com. Years
ago I distinctly recall that the proprietor of a prominent high end audio
shop on the East Side of Manhattan refused auditions of CD players. I wonder
why? Anyone here have any guess?

In message , ---MIKE---
writes
I think Derrick has made up his mind to get a new (expensive) CD player.
He is going to be very disappointed when he finds out it doesn't sound
any different (maybe louder but not different) than the one he already
has. I have tried many players since my Sony CDP 101 trying to
"correct" what the recording and mastering engineers have screwed up.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Mike.
No I have had sense, musical values come first with me so I think I have
made a sensible decision so here goes. My old Rotel 685, surely you will
accept it has by this time not only been superseded by a new generation
of players but it would also have had a lot of wear and tear in the last
Twenty years or so.
Having accepted that, and I trust you will grant me that one, I decided
not to buy a Naim CDS 2 (offered me second-hand and mint condition for
£2000), but to go for a new Quad99 CP 1 for, (wait for it), £800. It has
made a big difference, (believe it or not), to my "sound", (yes it has),
and I am now quite satisfied and so is my Bank Manager, (my wife).
Hopefully I can now look all my kind friends who helped me here in this
NG, straight in the face, at least I hope so. I now hope that someone
won't tell me the Quad is "rubbish" because I notice for all the so
called good reviews it has got on the net, I only noticed today that
What Hi Fi magazine recommends the Cyrus CD8x, you can't win can you?

Have a nice day.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 May 2005 19:33:51 GMT, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

Finally, I would like an opinion of any of your posters to this NG who
own or have heard the Quad 99, (in a system), as to their opinion of it.

The Quad is a fine CD player, as are most others these days. You are
seriously unlikely to achieve better sound with *any* other player, no
matter how exotic in appearance, name badge or price.


Nonsense. There is considerable variation in the quality of the analog
stages, to say nothing of the filtration schemes, digital conversion,
tracking, etc.

ANYONE can hear the difference between a $100 player and a $3000 player.

Derrick Fawsitt wrote:

NG, straight in the face, at least I hope so. I now hope that someone
won't tell me the Quad is "rubbish" because I notice for all the so
called good reviews it has got on the net, I only noticed today that
What Hi Fi magazine recommends the Cyrus CD8x, you can't win can you?

Sure you can. All you have to do is ignore all those silly reviews!

bob
____________

"Further carefully-conducted blind tests will be necessary
if these conclusions are felt to be in error."
--Stanley P. Lip****z

wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 May 2005 19:33:51 GMT, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

Finally, I would like an opinion of any of your posters to this NG who
own or have heard the Quad 99, (in a system), as to their opinion of it.

The Quad is a fine CD player, as are most others these days. You are
seriously unlikely to achieve better sound with *any* other player, no
matter how exotic in appearance, name badge or price.


Nonsense. There is considerable variation in the quality of the analog
stages, to say nothing of the filtration schemes, digital conversion,
tracking, etc.

ANYONE can hear the difference between a $100 player and a $3000 player.

True..but how many can prove the difference is real?


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

The differences of cd players can be heard much better on good
equipment, I think alot of people think they sound alike due to cheap
equipment. The above poster is right with the above stated
qualification. It's not snake oil, it's obvious.

In message ,
writes
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 May 2005 19:33:51 GMT, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

Finally, I would like an opinion of any of your posters to this NG who
own or have heard the Quad 99, (in a system), as to their opinion of it.

The Quad is a fine CD player, as are most others these days. You are
seriously unlikely to achieve better sound with *any* other player, no
matter how exotic in appearance, name badge or price.


Nonsense. There is considerable variation in the quality of the analog
stages, to say nothing of the filtration schemes, digital conversion,
tracking, etc.

ANYONE can hear the difference between a $100 player and a $3000 player.

One thing I "can" say now, there are two main schools of opinion, those
that think its all affected by the money you pay for the unit and those
that say its not. I personally like the last position, I have to cling
to that opinion anyway as the first one supports those who say I should
have gone for the £2000 name, in other words, "the Naims the Game",
(sorry).
--
Derrick Fawsitt

"Nonsense. There is considerable variation in the quality of the analog
stages, to say nothing of the filtration schemes, digital conversion,"

Leaving aside the definition of"quality", the real question is do any
differences in such as you mention rise above the threshold of audibility
on it's effect on the signal, not thearetically but in confirmed listening
alone? Can you point us to a body of examples where listening alone
reveals these differences in a repeatable controlled context?

On 26 May 2005 00:13:42 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 May 2005 19:33:51 GMT, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

Finally, I would like an opinion of any of your posters to this NG who
own or have heard the Quad 99, (in a system), as to their opinion of it.

The Quad is a fine CD player, as are most others these days. You are
seriously unlikely to achieve better sound with *any* other player, no
matter how exotic in appearance, name badge or price.

Nonsense. There is considerable variation in the quality of the analog
stages, to say nothing of the filtration schemes, digital conversion,
tracking, etc.

However, none of those make an *audible* difference. Unless of course
you go for an 'audiophile approved' exotic with a stratospheric price
tag, this is very likely to have serious deficiencies...............

ANYONE can hear the difference between a $100 player and a $3000 player.

Not when they don't *know* which one is playing, they can't! Caveat as
above - I can certainly hear the difference between the Audio Note or
YBA and any *good* CD player. The above is the typical knee-jerk
response of a 'label snob' who simply has not taken the trouble to
*listen* to a wide range of players under level-matched blind
conditions.

To be specific, most audiophiles would regard the beautifully built
Meridian 588 as being pretty much state of the art when it comes to
properly engineered top-class dedicated CD players. In my Krell/Apogee
system, it sounds identical to my 'bargain basement' Chinese-made
Pioneer DV-575A 'universal' player, which plays any kind of silver
disc and also provides great pictures with full surround sound! The
price ratio is about twenty to one, the audible difference is zero.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:

"Nonsense. There is considerable variation in the quality of the analog
stages, to say nothing of the filtration schemes, digital conversion,"

Leaving aside the definition of"quality", the real question is do any
differences in such as you mention rise above the threshold of audibility
on it's effect on the signal, not thearetically but in confirmed listening
alone? Can you point us to a body of examples where listening alone
reveals these differences in a repeatable controlled context?

And if said differences are real, someone surely would have identified
measureable differences by now between a $300 player and a $3K CD
player. Where is the data?

wrote:
The differences of cd players can be heard much better on good
equipment, I think alot of people think they sound alike due to cheap
equipment. The above poster is right with the above stated
qualification. It's not snake oil, it's obvious.

I think a lot of people think that simply listening to two CD players, one
after the other (often separated by considerable spans of time) and
hearing an 'obvious' difference, means there must be a real difference.
I think a lot of people aren't aware of how inherently fallible perception
is. Science is well aware of this, however, as are some notable audio
component manufacturers -- which is why they don't consider such reports
to be particularly meaningful, and routinely employ methods to control for
the 'noise' that perception introduces.

So before you tell us again what's 'obvious', perhaps you should consider
how wrong the 'obvious' can be:

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/ade..._illusion.html

On 26 May 2005 23:55:35 GMT, wrote:

The differences of cd players can be heard much better on good
equipment, I think alot of people think they sound alike due to cheap
equipment. The above poster is right with the above stated
qualification. It's not snake oil, it's obvious.

We see this kind of argument mostly from vinylphiles, and while it's
intuitively attractive, it doesn't hold water. Check out my system
he http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

Most folks would agree that this is a high quality system, arguably
state of the art. As I've previously noted, my cheap Pioneer DV-575A
'universal' player sounds identical to a genuinely 'state of the art'
Meridian 588 dedicated CD player at twenty times the price. This
comparison exceeds the $300 to $3,000 comment at both ends.........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2005 23:55:35 GMT, wrote:

The differences of cd players can be heard much better on good
equipment, I think alot of people think they sound alike due to cheap
equipment. The above poster is right with the above stated
qualification. It's not snake oil, it's obvious.

We see this kind of argument mostly from vinylphiles, and while it's
intuitively attractive, it doesn't hold water. Check out my system
he http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

Most folks would agree that this is a high quality system, arguably
state of the art. As I've previously noted, my cheap Pioneer DV-575A
'universal' player sounds identical to a genuinely 'state of the art'
Meridian 588 dedicated CD player at twenty times the price. This
comparison exceeds the $300 to $3,000 comment at both ends.........

You know Stewart, you've made that claim several times here. Did you DBT
it? I don't recall you posting any test results here. I have the DV-578
(the U.S. version) and I agree that it is an exceptional machine for the
price. But on SACD and CD I believe I hear clear and consistent differences
between it and my two Sony's. So I'm interested....did you DBT it, and if
sol, what were the results?

On 28 May 2005 15:11:18 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2005 23:55:35 GMT, wrote:

The differences of cd players can be heard much better on good
equipment, I think alot of people think they sound alike due to cheap
equipment. The above poster is right with the above stated
qualification. It's not snake oil, it's obvious.

We see this kind of argument mostly from vinylphiles, and while it's
intuitively attractive, it doesn't hold water. Check out my system
he http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

Most folks would agree that this is a high quality system, arguably
state of the art. As I've previously noted, my cheap Pioneer DV-575A
'universal' player sounds identical to a genuinely 'state of the art'
Meridian 588 dedicated CD player at twenty times the price. This
comparison exceeds the $300 to $3,000 comment at both ends.........

You know Stewart, you've made that claim several times here. Did you DBT
it?

Yes, with three friends. None of us scored better than 13 out of 20,
the average was 10.75. The 'worst' score of 9 was put up by the guy
who owns the Meridian - he was less than happy! :-)

I don't recall you posting any test results here. I have the DV-578
(the U.S. version) and I agree that it is an exceptional machine for the
price. But on SACD and CD I believe I hear clear and consistent differences
between it and my two Sony's. So I'm interested....did you DBT it, and if
sol, what were the results?

Four listeners including myself, scored 9, 10, 11 and 13 correct
identifications out of 20 level-matched double-blind ABX trials.
Switching and refreshments supplied by my long-suffering wife over a
session which lasted about four hours in total. Ancillary equipment
was my usual Krell/Apogee system, as linked above.

This isn't an unusual situation, as I have four CD players scattered
around the house, and the only one which is reliably identifiable is
an old Denon DCD-825. This has held true for half a dozen very
expensive 'audiophile' players which have been brought in, usually for
comparison with my trusty Sony CDP-715E.

The cheaper Pioneer has now replaced this as the 'mass market'
standard machine for these tests, and it should be no surprise to
anyone conversant with the technology, that it sounds the same as any
other well-engineered player. To be fair, the *video* isn't quite as
good as its big brother the DV-868Ai, but that's a whole other matter.

One final point - if you were using your sighted 'monadic testing'
method for comparison, I'm not surprised that you could 'hear'
differences. Using that method, you'd 'hear' differences even if
nothing was switched...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 28 May 2005 15:11:18 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2005 23:55:35 GMT, wrote:

The differences of cd players can be heard much better on good
equipment, I think alot of people think they sound alike due to cheap
equipment. The above poster is right with the above stated
qualification. It's not snake oil, it's obvious.

We see this kind of argument mostly from vinylphiles, and while it's
intuitively attractive, it doesn't hold water. Check out my system
he http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

Most folks would agree that this is a high quality system, arguably
state of the art. As I've previously noted, my cheap Pioneer DV-575A
'universal' player sounds identical to a genuinely 'state of the art'
Meridian 588 dedicated CD player at twenty times the price. This
comparison exceeds the $300 to $3,000 comment at both ends.........

You know Stewart, you've made that claim several times here. Did you DBT
it?

Yes, with three friends. None of us scored better than 13 out of 20,
the average was 10.75. The 'worst' score of 9 was put up by the guy
who owns the Meridian - he was less than happy! :-)

I don't recall you posting any test results here. I have the DV-578
(the U.S. version) and I agree that it is an exceptional machine for the
price. But on SACD and CD I believe I hear clear and consistent
differences
between it and my two Sony's. So I'm interested....did you DBT it, and
if
sol, what were the results?

Four listeners including myself, scored 9, 10, 11 and 13 correct
identifications out of 20 level-matched double-blind ABX trials.
Switching and refreshments supplied by my long-suffering wife over a
session which lasted about four hours in total. Ancillary equipment
was my usual Krell/Apogee system, as linked above.


Thank you for posting the results. Did you figure what the probabilities
were for 43 correct out of 80 trials? Not significant but what where they?

Let's see, four hours = 240 minutes. So if you guys worked non-stop
somebody did a trial every 3 minutes. Does that sound about right? What
source material did you use, and was the switching done via a user
controlled switchbox? How did you sync the machines? How/who recorded the
info? Was there feedback between listens? Were all listeners practicing
audiophiles or did they have any other "training"?


This isn't an unusual situation, as I have four CD players scattered
around the house, and the only one which is reliably identifiable is
an old Denon DCD-825. This has held true for half a dozen very
expensive 'audiophile' players which have been brought in, usually for
comparison with my trusty Sony CDP-715E.

The cheaper Pioneer has now replaced this as the 'mass market'
standard machine for these tests, and it should be no surprise to
anyone conversant with the technology, that it sounds the same as any
other well-engineered player. To be fair, the *video* isn't quite as
good as its big brother the DV-868Ai, but that's a whole other matter.

One final point - if you were using your sighted 'monadic testing'
method for comparison, I'm not surprised that you could 'hear'
differences. Using that method, you'd 'hear' differences even if
nothing was switched...............

Monadic and sighted are two different things, Stewart.

I didn't "test" at all Stewart. I simply listened and compared at various
times and with various sources. Consider it for the anecdote that it was
intended to be. I use all three for different purposes, so there is hardly
a reason to test...it wouldn't change a thing.

On 1 Jun 2005 00:31:31 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 28 May 2005 15:11:18 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2005 23:55:35 GMT, wrote:

The differences of cd players can be heard much better on good
equipment, I think alot of people think they sound alike due to cheap
equipment. The above poster is right with the above stated
qualification. It's not snake oil, it's obvious.

We see this kind of argument mostly from vinylphiles, and while it's
intuitively attractive, it doesn't hold water. Check out my system
he http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

Most folks would agree that this is a high quality system, arguably
state of the art. As I've previously noted, my cheap Pioneer DV-575A
'universal' player sounds identical to a genuinely 'state of the art'
Meridian 588 dedicated CD player at twenty times the price. This
comparison exceeds the $300 to $3,000 comment at both ends.........

You know Stewart, you've made that claim several times here. Did you DBT
it?

Yes, with three friends. None of us scored better than 13 out of 20,
the average was 10.75. The 'worst' score of 9 was put up by the guy
who owns the Meridian - he was less than happy! :-)

I don't recall you posting any test results here. I have the DV-578
(the U.S. version) and I agree that it is an exceptional machine for the
price. But on SACD and CD I believe I hear clear and consistent
differences
between it and my two Sony's. So I'm interested....did you DBT it, and
if
sol, what were the results?

Four listeners including myself, scored 9, 10, 11 and 13 correct
identifications out of 20 level-matched double-blind ABX trials.
Switching and refreshments supplied by my long-suffering wife over a
session which lasted about four hours in total. Ancillary equipment
was my usual Krell/Apogee system, as linked above.


Thank you for posting the results. Did you figure what the probabilities
were for 43 correct out of 80 trials? Not significant but what where they?

Somehow, I knew you'd try that one. That is *not* how statistics
works. You don't get to cherry-pick runs within a trial, and you don't
get to add up individual scores.

Let's see, four hours = 240 minutes. So if you guys worked non-stop
somebody did a trial every 3 minutes. Does that sound about right?

No, it was a 'panel' system, everyone listening at once. Whenever
anyone wanted to refer back to 'A' or 'B', they called for a change
and my wife did the switching. We know each other pretty well, so this
didn't cause problems.

What
source material did you use, and was the switching done via a user
controlled switchbox?

A wide range of music, previously agreed by all parties and condensed
onto a three pairs of CD-Rs. Switching was done via a three-channel
box fitted with attenuators to match levels.

How did you sync the machines?

With care! :-)

It is a problem with quick-switch CD comparisons, but I include 'tick
tracks' on the CD_Rs to simplify this. I've never known two players to
drift apart audibly over ten minutes or so. Certainly, the results
suggest that this wasn't a problem.

How/who recorded the info?

My wife proctored the test. We recorded individual scores, she had the
master sheet.

Was there feedback between listens?

No. There was general chat, but scores were not compared until the end
of the trial.

Were all listeners practicing
audiophiles or did they have any other "training"?

All experienced audiophiles, ages ranged from mid-30s to 57.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

What is all yours opinion about upgrading cd-players or using a DAC?
I am looking for a good sacd-player: Any ideas?

I live in Denmark and during my research for a new cd-player, I have
come around a little danish company making both amplifiers and
cd-players with a lot of acclaim.
http://www.densen.dk/

friendly wrote:
What is all yours opinion about upgrading cd-players or using a DAC?
I am looking for a good sacd-player: Any ideas?

I live in Denmark and during my research for a new cd-player, I have
come around a little danish company making both amplifiers and
cd-players with a lot of acclaim.
http://www.densen.dk/

Stereophile tested some amp (B100) some time ago and distortion was found to
be 0.3% depite claims of 0,01%. then I found the following in their
description:

The fact is that feedback -no matter what degree- alters the signal
and the result is: -dynamics will be compressed, -micro details compensated
away, -details smeared, -soundstage altered, -speed slowed
down, -transparency smeared and so on.

Naturally you will not have these problems with a zero-feedback
design.

However the basic design must be extremely much better than feedback
designs, otherwise the amplifier will not be stable. We are one of the few
companies in the world (the only one ?) capable of doing this and the result
of this is simply stunning, the combination of a MUCH better basic design
and the zero-feedback technology results in: Extreme dynamics, detaillevel,
amount of microdetails, perfect soundstage, transfer speed, transparency,
and wide open sound


Here the logic escapes me. How can a zero feedback design be unstable?
Either the claims are unsubstancial and feedback is used, or it doesn't make
sense.
The whole thing seems to be Quackery IMHO.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 1 Jun 2005 00:31:31 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 28 May 2005 15:11:18 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2005 23:55:35 GMT, wrote:

The differences of cd players can be heard much better on good
equipment, I think alot of people think they sound alike due to
cheap
equipment. The above poster is right with the above stated
qualification. It's not snake oil, it's obvious.

We see this kind of argument mostly from vinylphiles, and while it's
intuitively attractive, it doesn't hold water. Check out my system
he http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/

Most folks would agree that this is a high quality system, arguably
state of the art. As I've previously noted, my cheap Pioneer DV-575A
'universal' player sounds identical to a genuinely 'state of the art'
Meridian 588 dedicated CD player at twenty times the price. This
comparison exceeds the $300 to $3,000 comment at both ends.........

You know Stewart, you've made that claim several times here. Did you
DBT
it?

Yes, with three friends. None of us scored better than 13 out of 20,
the average was 10.75. The 'worst' score of 9 was put up by the guy
who owns the Meridian - he was less than happy! :-)

I don't recall you posting any test results here. I have the DV-578
(the U.S. version) and I agree that it is an exceptional machine for
the
price. But on SACD and CD I believe I hear clear and consistent
differences
between it and my two Sony's. So I'm interested....did you DBT it, and
if
sol, what were the results?

Four listeners including myself, scored 9, 10, 11 and 13 correct
identifications out of 20 level-matched double-blind ABX trials.
Switching and refreshments supplied by my long-suffering wife over a
session which lasted about four hours in total. Ancillary equipment
was my usual Krell/Apogee system, as linked above.


Thank you for posting the results. Did you figure what the probabilities
were for 43 correct out of 80 trials? Not significant but what where
they?

Somehow, I knew you'd try that one. That is *not* how statistics
works. You don't get to cherry-pick runs within a trial, and you don't
get to add up individual scores.


You most certainly can. You may not want to. And I'd rather do monadic
among 80 people. But a trial is a trial if you think your "universe" of
four people is representative. And you must, or you wouldn't be using their
"nulls" as examples.

Let's see, four hours = 240 minutes. So if you guys worked non-stop
somebody did a trial every 3 minutes. Does that sound about right?

No, it was a 'panel' system, everyone listening at once. Whenever
anyone wanted to refer back to 'A' or 'B', they called for a change
and my wife did the switching. We know each other pretty well, so this
didn't cause problems.


So let's see, you violated Arny and Nousanine's "rules" twice...you didn't
prevent group interaction or observation, and you didn't have individual
control of the switching.

I rest my case with regard to "amateurism" vs. "professionalism".


What
source material did you use, and was the switching done via a user
controlled switchbox?

A wide range of music, previously agreed by all parties and condensed
onto a three pairs of CD-Rs. Switching was done via a three-channel
box fitted with attenuators to match levels.


What kinds of music?. To test what aspects of reproduction? I assumed you
used music. But then maybe I should've assumed white noise?

I'm sure others here besides me would like to know the specifics so they
could match the choices up against their knowledge of the
pieces/performances as test vehicles.

How did you sync the machines?

With care! :-)

It is a problem with quick-switch CD comparisons, but I include 'tick
tracks' on the CD_Rs to simplify this. I've never known two players to
drift apart audibly over ten minutes or so. Certainly, the results
suggest that this wasn't a problem.


How can the results justify the means?


How/who recorded the info?

My wife proctored the test. We recorded individual scores, she had the
master sheet.

How did the box let her know whether X was A or B?


Was there feedback between listens?

No. There was general chat, but scores were not compared until the end
of the trial.


An Arny/Nousaine "no-no".

Were all listeners practicing
audiophiles or did they have any other "training"?

All experienced audiophiles, ages ranged from mid-30s to 57.
--

Thank you for your response. I look forward to a more detailed description
of your test passages.

On 3 Jun 2005 00:16:03 GMT, "Ban" wrote:

friendly wrote:
What is all yours opinion about upgrading cd-players or using a DAC?
I am looking for a good sacd-player: Any ideas?

I live in Denmark and during my research for a new cd-player, I have
come around a little danish company making both amplifiers and
cd-players with a lot of acclaim.
http://www.densen.dk/

Stereophile tested some amp (B100) some time ago and distortion was found to
be 0.3% depite claims of 0,01%. then I found the following in their
description:

The fact is that feedback -no matter what degree- alters the signal
and the result is: -dynamics will be compressed, -micro details compensated
away, -details smeared, -soundstage altered, -speed slowed
down, -transparency smeared and so on.

Naturally you will not have these problems with a zero-feedback
design.

However the basic design must be extremely much better than feedback
designs, otherwise the amplifier will not be stable. We are one of the few
companies in the world (the only one ?) capable of doing this and the result
of this is simply stunning, the combination of a MUCH better basic design
and the zero-feedback technology results in: Extreme dynamics, detaillevel,
amount of microdetails, perfect soundstage, transfer speed, transparency,
and wide open sound


Here the logic escapes me. How can a zero feedback design be unstable?
Either the claims are unsubstancial and feedback is used, or it doesn't make
sense.
The whole thing seems to be Quackery IMHO.

It is indeed quackery, as these technical claims are utter nonsense.
If Densen did in fact have the technical expertise they claim, then
they wouldn't say that kind of thing. QED............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In message , Stewart Pinkerton
writes
The whole thing seems to be Quackery IMHO.

It is indeed quackery, as these technical claims are utter nonsense.
If Densen did in fact have the technical expertise they claim, then
they wouldn't say that kind of thing. QED............

Hi Folks.

As the poster who started this thread in the first place, (seems like a
long time ago), I have finally updated my system and gone for a Quad
CDP2 99 CD Player, a Quad 909 amplifier and pre-amp together with a pair
of B & W CDM7 (special edition) speakers and I am "knocked out" by the
sound, in fact I envy no one. I now would not change the Quads for any
money. However, I would like to know more about my speakers which were
bought in the Channel Islands and are a special edition. I am
tremendously impressed by them with simply stunning sound and they look
good as well. Can anyone tell me their history, especially with
reference to the special edition ones I have got.
--
Derrick Fawsitt

I spent many hours auditioning CD players because I believed my cheap
Kenwood from 7 years ago was probablable way out of date by now. I
auditioned the Quad 99 CD along with an Arcam 192, 72, 92, Roksan Kandy
and Roksan Caspian MkII, MuFi X-Ray II. The Quad sounded almost the
same as the Roksans. The Arcam 192 did seem more detailed than its
cheaper brothers and the MuFi sounded different to all of them. In the
end I went for the Roksan Caspien. It cost 899 compared to my Kenwood
which cost 170. When I got it home I found it sounded almost identical
to the Kenwood, only marginally firmer and perhaps slightly less harsh
but it really was such a small difference I could have been imagining
it to make myself feel better after spending 899. I would fully expect
a difference between a 170 7 year old CD and a brand new one at 899
even if the new one was not best of breed. However there was no real
difference. The worst thing was it skipped alot of CDs that the
Kenwood did not. In general I think all CD players sound the same.
You get differences in sound from amps and speakers. When demoing a
new CD player take your old one along to see what you are really
getting for the money or take the new one home. Also take along some
of your most scratched CDs that still play on your old CD player. If
you buy CDs second hand then you will probably have some. The last
thing you want to have to do is go buying CDs again after you get a new
CD player.

Finally never buy anything from a HiFi chain named after a collection
of hardwood trees because they think nothing of their customers and
will try to rip you off.

On 12 Jun 2005 16:24:51 GMT, "Earthstick"
wrote:

Finally never buy anything from a HiFi chain named after a collection
of hardwood trees because they think nothing of their customers and
will try to rip you off.

That wasn't helpful, because each of those seven oaks would in fact be
a softwood tree.......................... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 26 May 2005 23:53:11 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

ANYONE can hear the difference between a $100 player and a $3000 player.

True..but how many can prove the difference is real?

I've always owned dedicated CD players. My latest is an Arcam CD73T,
which replaced an NAD C320BEE. My integrated is an Arcam A65+, which
replaced an NAD 7240PE receiver.

For kicks, I did an A/B between the Arcam CD and the $80 Sony DVD I've
used for years... but never hooked directly to the integrated (I'm
*not* an A/V guy... my two-channel does all the heavy lifting).

There was a clear difference. And I could recognize the Arcam CD. But
it wasn't necesarily "better". Dare I say... any difference may in
fact be engineered. I love the A65+... but I'm starting to believe
much of the Audiophile scene is held-over beliefs/behaviors from a
time when hi-fi really meant spending serious bucks for quality sound.
Now we have "quad 24bit ring DACS" and $200 "interconnects" and other
such fluff for those that still need to spend money to believe they
are hearing improvements in sound quality.

Hmmm... have I been hosed on the Arcam? And don't ask about my
"interconnects"... I spent $100 on a .5m pair of Kimber Heros... and
can't tell a difference there, either.

JW


--