Hi Folks,

Not forwarding anything for anyone anymore, so I thought I should get
back to my own handle.

Everytime I need to upgrade or change a component I come back to these
groups (and some certain other forums) in seach of advice. Here's one of
those times.

What's in question is a CD player selection problem. I am trying to
choose between a Linn Ikemi, Plinius CD101 and Musical Fidelity A5. In
order to further confuse myself I am asking for any other advice from
you folk. Something *cheaper* but matching in performance that I might
have missed. I really would like to avoid having to dish out some 3000+
Euros for a CD player but at the moment it seems to be the only way to go.

Any alternatives, including any spinner+dac combinations would be much
appreciated. Thanks.

PS: Jenn, give the Plinius, for instance, a listen.

Fella wrote:

Hi Folks,

Not forwarding anything for anyone anymore, so I thought I should get
back to my own handle.

Everytime I need to upgrade or change a component I come back to these
groups (and some certain other forums) in seach of advice. Here's one of
those times.

What's in question is a CD player selection problem. I am trying to
choose between a Linn Ikemi, Plinius CD101 and Musical Fidelity A5. In
order to further confuse myself I am asking for any other advice from
you folk. Something *cheaper* but matching in performance that I might
have missed. I really would like to avoid having to dish out some 3000+
Euros for a CD player but at the moment it seems to be the only way to go.

Any alternatives, including any spinner+dac combinations would be much
appreciated. Thanks.

PS: Jenn, give the Plinius, for instance, a listen.

Let me explain some basic facts !

A CD player firstly merely recreates the digital audio data on the CD that its
playing. It does this using its laser 'pickup'.

Let's assume first that the digital data is 'picked up' accurately. If this
doesn't happen you're stymied ! So don't buy some cheap ****.

It then passes through a DAC - a digital to analogue converter- that makes the
analogue signal we hear from the digital data.

Over the years, many advances in the accuracy of DACs have been made but
frankly even the inexpensive 'commodity' ones today are actually quite good.

If you think the DAC in your player may be inferior, simply get a player with
a digital output and buy a separate 'outboard' DAC using 'better' circuitry.
This actually makes for a good upgrade path. The digital data doesn't ever
change so your DAC simply sets the accuracy of reproduction and there's no
need ever to change the player.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:


Fella wrote:


Hi Folks,

Not forwarding anything for anyone anymore, so I thought I should get
back to my own handle.

Everytime I need to upgrade or change a component I come back to these
groups (and some certain other forums) in seach of advice. Here's one of
those times.

What's in question is a CD player selection problem. I am trying to
choose between a Linn Ikemi, Plinius CD101 and Musical Fidelity A5. In
order to further confuse myself I am asking for any other advice from
you folk. Something *cheaper* but matching in performance that I might
have missed. I really would like to avoid having to dish out some 3000+
Euros for a CD player but at the moment it seems to be the only way to go.

Any alternatives, including any spinner+dac combinations would be much
appreciated. Thanks.

PS: Jenn, give the Plinius, for instance, a listen.


Let me explain some basic facts !

Yes, sure, no need to shout.


A CD player firstly merely recreates the digital audio data on the CD that its
playing. It does this using its laser 'pickup'.

Sure, yes, of course, I second that.


Let's assume first that the digital data is 'picked up' accurately. If this
doesn't happen you're stymied ! So don't buy some cheap ****.

If it sounds good for me, why not?


It then passes through a DAC - a digital to analogue converter- that makes the
analogue signal we hear from the digital data.

Sure, yes, of course, here-here.


Over the years, many advances in the accuracy of DACs have been made but
frankly even the inexpensive 'commodity' ones today are actually quite good.

Ok, which ones? I am going to try the "MUSICAL FIDELITY X-DAC V3" in a
couple of weeks, I am going to put it after a Linn Genki, which I
already own. Only around 650 eurobucks..


If you think the DAC in your player may be inferior,

It's not that something is superior or inferior. What it is, is that I
tried out a friends CD player in my system some months back, a Luxman
d600s. It was the most amazing player I've ever heard. It had a midrange
to simply die for. It had deep, profound bass, huge tall, dep and wide
soundstage. It was larger then life sound but it still somehow managed
to not offend me, as usually larger.then.life sound does. The only
problem with it was with the upper registers, which were sometimes
harsh, sometimes non-existant. But in any case I could not listen to my
cambridge audio azur (which is a perfectly fine player) anymore after
having been exposed to that luxurious luxman.

So the quest began, unfortunately.

"Fella" wrote in message
...

It's not that something is superior or inferior. What it is, is that I
tried out a friends CD player in my system some months back, a Luxman
d600s. It was the most amazing player I've ever heard. It had a midrange
to simply die for. It had deep, profound bass, huge tall, dep and wide
soundstage. It was larger then life sound but it still somehow managed to
not offend me, as usually larger.then.life sound does.

Luxman does not have a reputation for making artficially colored SS gear,
and even the cheapest optical players have highly accurate sound, so Fella
your perceptions are probably based on your mental state when you were
listening to it, what you were listening to, and probable differences in
output level between the Luxman and your regular machine. Or perhaps your
regular machine has developed some audible flaw.

Fella, I can save you about $2900 - next time you evaluate optical players
do a level-matched, time-synched, bias controlled listening test, such as
the ones that Stewart Pinkerton has been talking about.

While John Atkinson has been whining about the prohibitive costs of doing
proper listening tests for his ragazine, for $2,900 you can do one heck of a
proper blind listening test!

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Fella" wrote in message
...


It's not that something is superior or inferior. What it is, is that I
tried out a friends CD player in my system some months back, a Luxman
d600s. It was the most amazing player I've ever heard. It had a midrange
to simply die for. It had deep, profound bass, huge tall, dep and wide
soundstage. It was larger then life sound but it still somehow managed to
not offend me, as usually larger.then.life sound does.


Luxman does not have a reputation for making artficially colored SS gear,
and even the cheapest optical players have highly accurate sound, so Fella
your perceptions are probably based on your mental state when you were
listening to it,

Thanks Arny for this well expected analysis but the player stayed in my
system for some time, almost three weeks, so I could not have been in
that "mental state" all the whilst.. I presume.


Fella, I can save you about $2900 - next time you evaluate optical players
do a level-matched, time-synched, bias controlled listening test, such as
the ones that Stewart Pinkerton has been talking about.

Yes, such a test would make all those machines sound the same for the
duration of the test. But it would hardly be relevant in any way.


While John Atkinson has been whining about the prohibitive costs of doing
proper listening tests for his ragazine, for $2,900 you can do one heck of a
proper blind listening test!


I don't know what Atkinson is whining about or not but I still thank you
for your efforts that you tried to save me my 2900 eurobucks.

I don't know how you would manage this but try to listen to a luxman
d600s with proper amplification and speakers, sighted of course, as
opposed to the whatever player you might using at the moment, there is a
high chance that the sound will just simply amaze you.

"Fella" wrote in message
news
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Fella" wrote in message
...


It's not that something is superior or inferior. What it is, is that I
tried out a friends CD player in my system some months back, a Luxman
d600s. It was the most amazing player I've ever heard. It had a midrange
to simply die for. It had deep, profound bass, huge tall, dep and wide
soundstage. It was larger then life sound but it still somehow managed to
not offend me, as usually larger.then.life sound does.


Luxman does not have a reputation for making artficially colored SS gear,
and even the cheapest optical players have highly accurate sound, so
Fella your perceptions are probably based on your mental state when you
were listening to it,

Thanks Arny for this well expected analysis but the player stayed in my
system for some time, almost three weeks, so I could not have been in that
"mental state" all the whilst.. I presume.

Exactly, you were already convinced that it sounded better.

Fella, I can save you about $2900 - next time you evaluate optical
players do a level-matched, time-synched, bias controlled listening test,
such as the ones that Stewart Pinkerton has been talking about.

Yes, such a test would make all those machines sound the same for the
duration of the test. But it would hardly be relevant in any way.

Hey Fella, I tried.

While John Atkinson has been whining about the prohibitive costs of doing
proper listening tests for his ragazine, for $2,900 you can do one heck
of a proper blind listening test!

I don't know what Atkinson is whining about or not but I still thank you
for your efforts that you tried to save me my 2900 eurobucks.

I don't know how you would manage this but try to listen to a luxman d600s
with proper amplification and speakers, sighted of course, as opposed to
the whatever player you might using at the moment, there is a high chance
that the sound will just simply amaze you.

Nahh, I'd just level-match and time synch them and do a blind test as soon
as I could.

Fella, it sounds like you're committed to blowing the money - enjoy!

Don't ever even for a second think that if you had done a proper listening
test, those $3k would still be in your wallet.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Fella" wrote in message


I don't know how you would manage this but try to listen to a luxman d600s
with proper amplification and speakers, sighted of course, as opposed to
the whatever player you might using at the moment, there is a high chance
that the sound will just simply amaze you.


Nahh, I'd just level-match and time synch them and do a blind test as soon
as I could.

Without even listening to it, just like, NORMALLY, first?


Fella, it sounds like you're committed to blowing the money - enjoy!

If I was so, I would not be asking advice for any *cheaper* alternatives
now would I?


Don't ever even for a second think that if you had done a proper listening
test, those $3k would still be in your wallet.


Didn't get what you're trying to say here. It comes across as: "if you
had done a test your money would definitely not be in your wallet" .. or
somesuch.

Arny, you get to have an opinion as does everybody, ok. Anr yours is
that one should do tests. Ok... Noted.

"Fella" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Fella" wrote in message
I don't know how you would manage this but try to listen to a luxman
d600s with proper amplification and speakers, sighted of course, as
opposed to the whatever player you might using at the moment, there is a
high chance that the sound will just simply amaze you.


Nahh, I'd just level-match and time synch them and do a blind test as
soon as I could.

Without even listening to it, just like, NORMALLY, first?

That's hard to avoid, and there's no reason to avoid it.

Fella, it sounds like you're committed to blowing the money - enjoy!

If I was so, I would not be asking advice for any *cheaper* alternatives
now would I?

I gave you the best advice I could - use the best possible listening tests
to guide your decision-making process.

Let's face it, if just matching levels would reveal something to you, why
not at least do that?

If just matching levels and time-synching would reveal something to you, why
not at least do that?

Don't ever even for a second think that if you had done a proper
listening test, those $3k would still be in your wallet.

Didn't get what you're trying to say here. It comes across as: "if you had
done a test your money would definitely not be in your wallet" .. or
somesuch.

That's your perception. It's just that to me, $3,000 is a good piece of
change. On the one hand I work with transactions that size all the time. On
the other hand, I do a little work before I collect $3-4K. I can do a lot
of good listening tests for $3,000, even if John Atkinson can't.

Arny, you get to have an opinion as does everybody, ok. Anr yours is that
one should do tests. Ok... Noted.

There you go! Enjoy!

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Fella" wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Fella" wrote in message

I don't know how you would manage this but try to listen to a luxman
d600s with proper amplification and speakers, sighted of course, as
opposed to the whatever player you might using at the moment, there is a
high chance that the sound will just simply amaze you.


Nahh, I'd just level-match and time synch them and do a blind test as
soon as I could.

Without even listening to it, just like, NORMALLY, first?


That's hard to avoid, and there's no reason to avoid it.

To "avoid" listening to a CD player when trying to asses it .....
Hmmm.... What revealing choice of a word, Arny. And somewhat sad too.

But yes, do try not to avoid it, do try and give a listen to that
Luxman, *you* *will* *be* *amazed* ...



Let's face it, if just matching levels would reveal something to you, why
not at least do that?

I am talking about the thing having this IMMENSE soundstage, tall, wide,
deeeeeep. And you are still talking about matching levels. Can't you see
it arny, its totaly irrelevant.



That's your perception. It's just that to me, $3,000 is a good piece of
change.

Yeah, talk about it...


On the one hand I work with transactions that size all the time.

Sure sure, yes.

On
the other hand, I do a little work before I collect $3-4K.

Well I do almost a half a month!

I can do a lot
of good listening tests for $3,000, even if John Atkinson can't.

Ahh the crime of being Jon Atkinson.. Managing editing an international
audio magazine.. Don't you just hate him for that?



Arny, you get to have an opinion as does everybody, ok. Anr yours is that
one should do tests. Ok... Noted.


There you go! Enjoy!

Thanks! Now where is that Margaret when you need her? Usually she would
just blabber out a couple of brand names and the whole investigation
would take a complete new turn, as happened with the amp!

In article ,
Fella wrote:

Hi Folks,

Not forwarding anything for anyone anymore, so I thought I should get
back to my own handle.

Everytime I need to upgrade or change a component I come back to these
groups (and some certain other forums) in seach of advice. Here's one of
those times.

What's in question is a CD player selection problem. I am trying to
choose between a Linn Ikemi, Plinius CD101 and Musical Fidelity A5. In
order to further confuse myself I am asking for any other advice from
you folk. Something *cheaper* but matching in performance that I might
have missed. I really would like to avoid having to dish out some 3000+
Euros for a CD player but at the moment it seems to be the only way to go.

Any alternatives, including any spinner+dac combinations would be much
appreciated. Thanks.

PS: Jenn, give the Plinius, for instance, a listen.

Don't overlook Arcam players, even if the current models don't have the
RING-DAC.

I've heard the Linn under casual conditions and liked it, but not better
than I like my Arcam.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:

Don't overlook Arcam players, even if the current models don't have the
RING-DAC.

I've heard the Linn under casual conditions and liked it, but not better
than I like my Arcam.

Stephen

Thanks Stephen. Any particular Arcam model in mind? There is one Arcam
up for grabs in the local hifi flea market here. An " arcam cd72" going
for 390 eurobucks. But I would not be able to try it out, just buy it
and have it posted to me. What would be your take on that, if any?

Fella wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:


Fella wrote:


Hi Folks,

Not forwarding anything for anyone anymore, so I thought I should get
back to my own handle.

Everytime I need to upgrade or change a component I come back to these
groups (and some certain other forums) in seach of advice. Here's one of
those times.

What's in question is a CD player selection problem. I am trying to
choose between a Linn Ikemi, Plinius CD101 and Musical Fidelity A5. In
order to further confuse myself I am asking for any other advice from
you folk. Something *cheaper* but matching in performance that I might
have missed. I really would like to avoid having to dish out some 3000+
Euros for a CD player but at the moment it seems to be the only way to go.

Any alternatives, including any spinner+dac combinations would be much
appreciated. Thanks.

PS: Jenn, give the Plinius, for instance, a listen.


Let me explain some basic facts !

Yes, sure, no need to shout.


A CD player firstly merely recreates the digital audio data on the CD that its
playing. It does this using its laser 'pickup'.

Sure, yes, of course, I second that.


Let's assume first that the digital data is 'picked up' accurately. If this
doesn't happen you're stymied ! So don't buy some cheap ****.

If it sounds good for me, why not?


It then passes through a DAC - a digital to analogue converter- that makes the
analogue signal we hear from the digital data.

Sure, yes, of course, here-here.


Over the years, many advances in the accuracy of DACs have been made but
frankly even the inexpensive 'commodity' ones today are actually quite good.

Ok, which ones? I am going to try the "MUSICAL FIDELITY X-DAC V3" in a
couple of weeks, I am going to put it after a Linn Genki, which I
already own. Only around 650 eurobucks..


If you think the DAC in your player may be inferior,

It's not that something is superior or inferior. What it is, is that I
tried out a friends CD player in my system some months back, a Luxman
d600s. It was the most amazing player I've ever heard. It had a midrange
to simply die for. It had deep, profound bass, huge tall, dep and wide
soundstage. It was larger then life sound but it still somehow managed
to not offend me, as usually larger.then.life sound does. The only
problem with it was with the upper registers, which were sometimes
harsh, sometimes non-existant. But in any case I could not listen to my
cambridge audio azur (which is a perfectly fine player) anymore after
having been exposed to that luxurious luxman.

So the quest began, unfortunately.

Thinking that a DAC has " midrange to simply die for.... deep, profound bass, huge
tall, dep and wide soundstage " is plain silly.

Ppl commonly make the mistake of associating such influences at the time of
listening with some kind of technology and then try to find all manner of elaborate
and totally wrong explanations for it. It's rarely so. There's normally some
external influence going on.

If you want your music to sound truly wonderful just smoke some cannabis. It's all
in the mind you see !

Graham

In article ,
Fella wrote:

Hi Folks,

Not forwarding anything for anyone anymore, so I thought I should get
back to my own handle.

Everytime I need to upgrade or change a component I come back to these
groups (and some certain other forums) in seach of advice. Here's one of
those times.

What's in question is a CD player selection problem. I am trying to
choose between a Linn Ikemi, Plinius CD101 and Musical Fidelity A5. In
order to further confuse myself I am asking for any other advice from
you folk. Something *cheaper* but matching in performance that I might
have missed. I really would like to avoid having to dish out some 3000+
Euros for a CD player but at the moment it seems to be the only way to go.

Any alternatives, including any spinner+dac combinations would be much
appreciated. Thanks.

PS: Jenn, give the Plinius, for instance, a listen.

Will do, thanks.

Pooh Bear wrote:


Fella wrote:


Pooh Bear wrote:


Fella wrote:



Hi Folks,

Not forwarding anything for anyone anymore, so I thought I should get
back to my own handle.

Everytime I need to upgrade or change a component I come back to these
groups (and some certain other forums) in seach of advice. Here's one of
those times.

What's in question is a CD player selection problem. I am trying to
choose between a Linn Ikemi, Plinius CD101 and Musical Fidelity A5. In
order to further confuse myself I am asking for any other advice from
you folk. Something *cheaper* but matching in performance that I might
have missed. I really would like to avoid having to dish out some 3000+
Euros for a CD player but at the moment it seems to be the only way to go.

Any alternatives, including any spinner+dac combinations would be much
appreciated. Thanks.

PS: Jenn, give the Plinius, for instance, a listen.


Let me explain some basic facts !

Yes, sure, no need to shout.


A CD player firstly merely recreates the digital audio data on the CD that its
playing. It does this using its laser 'pickup'.

Sure, yes, of course, I second that.


Let's assume first that the digital data is 'picked up' accurately. If this
doesn't happen you're stymied ! So don't buy some cheap ****.

If it sounds good for me, why not?


It then passes through a DAC - a digital to analogue converter- that makes the
analogue signal we hear from the digital data.

Sure, yes, of course, here-here.


Over the years, many advances in the accuracy of DACs have been made but
frankly even the inexpensive 'commodity' ones today are actually quite good.

Ok, which ones? I am going to try the "MUSICAL FIDELITY X-DAC V3" in a
couple of weeks, I am going to put it after a Linn Genki, which I
already own. Only around 650 eurobucks..


If you think the DAC in your player may be inferior,

It's not that something is superior or inferior. What it is, is that I
tried out a friends CD player in my system some months back, a Luxman
d600s. It was the most amazing player I've ever heard. It had a midrange
to simply die for. It had deep, profound bass, huge tall, dep and wide
soundstage. It was larger then life sound but it still somehow managed
to not offend me, as usually larger.then.life sound does. The only
problem with it was with the upper registers, which were sometimes
harsh, sometimes non-existant. But in any case I could not listen to my
cambridge audio azur (which is a perfectly fine player) anymore after
having been exposed to that luxurious luxman.

So the quest began, unfortunately.


Thinking that a DAC has " midrange to simply die for.... deep, profound bass, huge
tall, dep and wide soundstage " is plain silly.

Well silly me then.


Ppl commonly make the mistake of associating such influences at the time of
listening with some kind of technology and then try to find all manner of elaborate
and totally wrong explanations for it. It's rarely so. There's normally some
external influence going on.

Yeah, the DAC, for instance..

No but really, graham, before shooting from the hip like that you really
should give a listen to that Luxman. And not all aspects of the sound
luxman makes was positive, mind you. It did a horrific job with the
treble, just simply horrible, it was, that I could not bring myself to
buy it (there was the same unit in the flea market for sale, that was
the reason why the friend brought it over).

For three weeks, under all conditions, the luxman sounded the way it
sounded... and none of your shootings from the hip cliches is going to
change that.

In article ,
Fella wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

Don't overlook Arcam players, even if the current models don't have the
RING-DAC.

I've heard the Linn under casual conditions and liked it, but not better
than I like my Arcam.

Thanks Stephen. Any particular Arcam model in mind? There is one Arcam
up for grabs in the local hifi flea market here. An " arcam cd72" going
for 390 eurobucks. But I would not be able to try it out, just buy it
and have it posted to me. What would be your take on that, if any?

I don't know the 72, but I'm told the model that replaced it (CD 73) is
much better for about the same money. Hang on, let's consult Google...

Lotso' kind words for the 73! I guess it's about $700; it might be
cheaper in Europe. That used 72 seems pricey compared to the new model.

Stephen

Pooh Bear wrote
Fella wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:


snip



If you think the DAC in your player may be inferior,

It's not that something is superior or inferior. What it is, is that I
tried out a friends CD player in my system some months back, a Luxman
d600s. It was the most amazing player I've ever heard. It had a midrange
to simply die for. It had deep, profound bass, huge tall, dep and wide
soundstage. It was larger then life sound but it still somehow managed
to not offend me, as usually larger.then.life sound does. The only
problem with it was with the upper registers, which were sometimes
harsh, sometimes non-existant. But in any case I could not listen to my
cambridge audio azur (which is a perfectly fine player) anymore after
having been exposed to that luxurious luxman.

So the quest began, unfortunately.

Thinking that a DAC has " midrange to simply die for.... deep, profound
bass, huge tall, dep and wide soundstage " is plain silly.


Ppl commonly make the mistake of associating such influences at the
time of listening with some kind of technology and then try to find all
manner of elaborate and totally wrong explanations for it. It's rarely so.
There's normally some external influence going on.


So does the digital data gets 'picked-up' accurately through DAC by
recreating it or by copying it ?


Which one is your basic facts?




If you want your music to sound truly wonderful just smoke some cannabis.
It's all in the mind you see !

Graham

EddieM wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote

Ppl commonly make the mistake of associating such influences at the
time of listening with some kind of technology and then try to find all
manner of elaborate and totally wrong explanations for it. It's rarely so.
There's normally some external influence going on.

So does the digital data gets 'picked-up' accurately through DAC by
recreating it or by copying it ?

The DAC doesn't 'pick up' anyrthing.

The laser head in the player reads the digital data on the CD. Essentially you
can consider a player as consisting of 2 functional parts.

The transport.....
This plays the disc and reads the digital audio ( and track ) data. It's not
essential for digital data to be 'picked up' precisely accurately like it is for
an analogue replay system since almost all digital data storage systems
including CD and hard disc drives use 'clever signal processing' to recreate the
data including error correction and detection. CD recording 'encodes' the audio
data using an error correction algorithm called 'Reed-Solomon' that adds 'extra
data' that enable the player to recognise and correct most data pickup errors.
Really bad errors ( say caused by a defective CD ) are detected and concealed
using a 'concealment algorithm' that 'makes a best guess' about a missing
sample.
Gross errors are muted.
It is possible that a really cheap and nasty player may be more prone to error
issues.
It's a shame IMHO that CD players don't have a status LED indicating the data
validity. DAT recorders that use similar technology often had status leds that
indicated when the data was being corrected. Frequent error correction would
clearly indicate that the recovered audio wasn't perfect.
The player then passes the recovered digital data to the converter.


The converter.
This takes the digital data and converts it to analogue.
The quality of conversion will depend on the DAC chip, to some extent on the
following analogue circuitry and also any 'clever techniques' used such as
oversampling.
This is the area where the real audible differences are made. However, once you
get past the 'economy models' there is frankly really quite little that todays'
high end converters can do that a more 'middle of the road' one can't ! They've
really become that good.
As a final comment, as with all analogue circuitry, things like pcb layout may
influence the final performance. This does offer some scope for the really adept
designer to make a converter that excels over its peers, although I wonder how
audible all of this is.


Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:


It's a shame IMHO that CD players don't have a status LED indicating the data
validity.

Yeah, it should beep too. Or even perhaps say things like "da-ta..
not.. accept... tble.." in this really computerish voice, yes?


This is the area where the real audible differences are made.

Isn't that an impossibility? Oh, wait, there's more..

However, once you
get past the 'economy models' there is frankly really quite little that todays'
high end converters can do that a more 'middle of the road' one can't !

Ok, sure. But how did you determine this? Did you ABX them? Did you ever
even had the slightest suspicion that ABXing them might be just designed
to re-inforce your "no difference should exist or be audible" bias? I
know this, since I've been there, done that.

They've
really become that good.

Yes, we're talking about CD players here, so in a sense that is correct.
They do tend to sound similar since they will inevitably use very
similar software. ABXing an off the shelf "united" dvd player and a Linn
CD12 for instance, would turn out nill results, ok, but that would say a
complete nothing about the *real* and audible differences in between
those two units. And you can just forget about the differences in
"measuring" the *musical enjoyment* that one player gives versus the other.

It seems that with the digital age and the misconception that since it's
"digital", art, or craftsmanship are no longer valid traits, yes?
Computers just need to calculate and do the algorythms for us, yes? Well
yes, maybe for "running" microsoft windows. But not for making music. CD
players still have to *make* *music*, re-create it, re-produce it, but
it's still MUSIC we're talking about here M U S I C ...



As a final comment, as with all analogue circuitry, things like pcb layout may
influence the final performance. This does offer some scope for the really adept
designer to make a converter that excels over its peers, although I wonder how
audible all of this is.


No need for wondering and being puzzled, etc. Just ABX everything and
all will sound the same.


Graham

Fella wrote:

No need for wondering and being puzzled, etc. Just ABX everything and
all will sound the same.

Please don't associate me with the ABXing that Arny finds makes his QSC USA series 'PA
amplifier' sound as good as the best of genuinely well-designed high-end audio.

I have listened to these QSC amps and I regard them as very 'agricultural' in their
performance. Even before listening, you could thow several technical brickbats at them
based on examination of the circuitry.

I have no trouble distinguishing such types - yet it's entirely explainable using
science too. No surprise to me I have to say !

Now - would you like to start again ?

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

Fella wrote:


No need for wondering and being puzzled, etc. Just ABX everything and
all will sound the same.


Please don't associate me with the ABXing that Arny finds makes his QSC USA series 'PA
amplifier' sound as good as the best of genuinely well-designed high-end audio.

"As good as" ?? I've found that ABXing makes things sound the same, with
no room for words like "good" or "bad" or "like" or "dislike".


I have listened to these QSC amps and I regard them as very 'agricultural' in their
performance.

Was it double blind or just blind or did you actualy see them when
listening to them? Seeing the thing you are listening to makes you prone
to impressions and interpretations you know, IOW, delusional.


I have no trouble distinguishing such types - yet it's entirely explainable using
science too.

I'd like to have this Linn designer or two here explaining to us in
concrete scientific terms (that perhaps you would understand better then
me) just what it is (or a combination of whats) that makes their players
sound so different. There is something with the decay of the sounds in
Linn, but I for one can't put my finger on it.


Now - would you like to start again ?


No we're OK, we can continue from here. Shame though Margaret seems to
be hiding in the woods since she would have given an informative take on
all this that perhaps might have helped me out.


Graham

Pooh Bear wrote
EddieM wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote



Ppl commonly make the mistake of associating such influences at the
time of listening with some kind of technology and then try to find all
manner of elaborate and totally wrong explanations for it. It's rarely
so.
There's normally some external influence going on.

So does the digital data gets 'picked-up' accurately through DAC by
recreating it or by copying it ?

The DAC doesn't 'pick up' anyrthing.


Yes, it is by the CD laser pick-up which then goes "through" DAC as I meant
to say.


The laser head in the player reads the digital data on the CD. Essentially
you
can consider a player as consisting of 2 functional parts.

The transport.....
This plays the disc and reads the digital audio ( and track ) data. It's
not
essential for digital data to be 'picked up' precisely accurately like it is
for
an analogue replay system since almost all digital data storage systems
including CD and hard disc drives use 'clever signal processing' to recreate
the
data including error correction and detection. CD recording 'encodes' the
audio
data using an error correction algorithm called 'Reed-Solomon' that adds
'extra
data' that enable the player to recognise and correct most data pickup
errors.
Really bad errors ( say caused by a defective CD ) are detected and
concealed
using a 'concealment algorithm' that 'makes a best guess' about a missing
sample.
Gross errors are muted.
It is possible that a really cheap and nasty player may be more prone to
error
issues.
It's a shame IMHO that CD players don't have a status LED indicating the
data
validity. DAT recorders that use similar technology often had status leds
that
indicated when the data was being corrected. Frequent error correction would
clearly indicate that the recovered audio wasn't perfect.
The player then passes the recovered digital data to the converter.


The converter.
This takes the digital data and converts it to analogue.
The quality of conversion will depend on the DAC chip, to some extent on the
following analogue circuitry and also any 'clever techniques' used such as
oversampling.
This is the area where the real audible differences are made. However, once
you
get past the 'economy models' there is frankly really quite little that
todays'
high end converters can do that a more 'middle of the road' one can't !
They've
really become that good.
As a final comment, as with all analogue circuitry, things like pcb layout
may
influence the final performance. This does offer some scope for the really
adept
designer to make a converter that excels over its peers, although I wonder
how
audible all of this is.


Graham


Alright ! Alright ! That looks like a lot of information but that's not
what I
had in mind wayy back then. Ahh Well those who might see that will really
like
it and will remember you and thank you (I hope).

EddieM wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote
EddieM wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote

Ppl commonly make the mistake of associating such influences at the
time of listening with some kind of technology and then try to find all
manner of elaborate and totally wrong explanations for it. It's rarely
so.
There's normally some external influence going on.

So does the digital data gets 'picked-up' accurately through DAC by
recreating it or by copying it ?

The DAC doesn't 'pick up' anyrthing.

Yes, it is by the CD laser pick-up which then goes "through" DAC as I meant
to say.

The laser head in the player reads the digital data on the CD. Essentially
you
can consider a player as consisting of 2 functional parts.

The transport.....
This plays the disc and reads the digital audio ( and track ) data. It's
not
essential for digital data to be 'picked up' precisely accurately like it is
for
an analogue replay system since almost all digital data storage systems
including CD and hard disc drives use 'clever signal processing' to recreate
the
data including error correction and detection. CD recording 'encodes' the
audio
data using an error correction algorithm called 'Reed-Solomon' that adds
'extra
data' that enable the player to recognise and correct most data pickup
errors.
Really bad errors ( say caused by a defective CD ) are detected and
concealed
using a 'concealment algorithm' that 'makes a best guess' about a missing
sample.
Gross errors are muted.
It is possible that a really cheap and nasty player may be more prone to
error
issues.
It's a shame IMHO that CD players don't have a status LED indicating the
data
validity. DAT recorders that use similar technology often had status leds
that
indicated when the data was being corrected. Frequent error correction would
clearly indicate that the recovered audio wasn't perfect.
The player then passes the recovered digital data to the converter.


The converter.
This takes the digital data and converts it to analogue.
The quality of conversion will depend on the DAC chip, to some extent on the
following analogue circuitry and also any 'clever techniques' used such as
oversampling.
This is the area where the real audible differences are made. However, once
you
get past the 'economy models' there is frankly really quite little that
todays'
high end converters can do that a more 'middle of the road' one can't !
They've
really become that good.
As a final comment, as with all analogue circuitry, things like pcb layout
may
influence the final performance. This does offer some scope for the really
adept
designer to make a converter that excels over its peers, although I wonder
how
audible all of this is.


Graham

Alright ! Alright ! That looks like a lot of information but that's not
what I
had in mind wayy back then. Ahh Well those who might see that will really
like
it and will remember you and thank you (I hope).

All audio recording and reproduction is based on science.

Digital methods are the best we have to date.

I'm not averse to the view that they still exhibit some residual imperfections
still. Advancing technology will reduce any such imperfections further in due
course.

In comparion, analogue methods are essentially incapable of much improvement -
they are both mature ( well developed already ) and have inherent scientifically
based limitations that are beyond being helped much by further technological
improvements.

For example, analogue tape recording was gradually improved by, amongst other
things, improvements over the years in magnetic materials but that advance has
effectively now stalled, having found basic underlying materials limits.

Graham

"Fella" wrote in message
news

"As good as" ?? I've found that ABXing makes things sound the same, with
no room for words like "good" or "bad" or "like" or "dislike".

ABXing done right keeps things from sounding different *only* if they sound
different *just* because they are playing at different levels, playing
different music, or listener bias is screwing up the evaluation.

Note that the high end ragazines only manage 1 of 3 major variables while
supposedly auditioning equipment.

It's doesn't take an advanced study of rocket science to realize that people
have this tendency to believe what they believe, no matter how flakey the
evidence that supports their beliefs are. Sighted listening is flakey
evidence when it comes to comparing stuff like amps, cables, preamps, CD
players, even phono playback systems.

For example, Graham who is usually pretty logical, goes off on my QSC amp
tests even though AFAIK he's never actually listened to the exact QSC amps
I've ABXed.

BTW there's symmetry here - AFAIK I've never heard the QSC amps that Graham
complains about. They may sound like crap. How would I know?