Can your CD Player make a difference?

[Jeffrey N]

I have owned a Yamaha RXV 2095 HT Receiver for four years and have never been happy with it, especially when playing CDs. I always found the sound, although very clear and accurate, too bland, with no presence or liveness to it. So I've been thinking about replacing it with either a Rotel 1075, or a Denon AVR 3805, maybe the 5803, but that is really beyond my budget, or a Yamaha RXV 2400. The first two sound much warmer too me. The last one, frankly, I have not auditioned.

But, recently I got a Cassette Tape Deck for my system, so that I could play the 500 or so cassettes that I had put in storage. The deck, by the way, is a TEAC 860R. As soon as I played my first tape, I noticed a huge improvement in the sound. It sounded warmer, clearer, more like the music was being played in my living room.

So here is my question: Is my problem, my receiver, or my CD Player? I have a Yamaha CDC 775 (was top of line 4 years ago). And would it make sense to replace my CD Player instead of my Receiver and save a ton of money? Or is the problem in my head?

Thanks for your responses.

Jeffrey N, Toronto.

[bturk667]

Source components are very important. They are the "first link in the audio chain." If they do not do their job well, then how can anything after then perform well? "Garbage going in, garbage going out!" Long live Ivor Tiefenbraun! I say go out and listen to CD players. Let your ears decide for you!

[92135011]

Well, if you really boil it down, EVERYTHING is important.
Everything from the recording quality of the CD/LP/SACD/tape/R&R/etc to the shape and size of your room. That's when your gear skyrockets in price.

Just bought 10k speakers? well now you need 1k cables to support them.
Since your speakers are 10k, we must match them with a nice amp/preamp. Let's say 6k to be modest. Hmm, source needs an upgrade. turntable for 10k and DAC+transport for 5k. Oh man...since I have high end source, I should get some nice interconnects! well...there goes another several hundred...

Now you just spent 30k on some gear.

[kelsci]

I have owned a Yamaha RXV 2095 HT Receiver for four years and have never been happy with it, especially when playing CDs. I always found the sound, although very clear and accurate, too bland, with no presence or liveness to it. So I've been thinking about replacing it with either a Rotel 1075, or a Denon AVR 3805, maybe the 5803, but that is really beyond my budget, or a Yamaha RXV 2400. The first two sound much warmer too me. The last one, frankly, I have not auditioned.

But, recently I got a Cassette Tape Deck for my system, so that I could play the 500 or so cassettes that I had put in storage. The deck, by the way, is a TEAC 860R. As soon as I played my first tape, I noticed a huge improvement in the sound. It sounded warmer, clearer, more like the music was being played in my living room.

So here is my question: Is my problem, my receiver, or my CD Player? I have a Yamaha CDC 775 (was top of line 4 years ago). And would it make sense to replace my CD Player instead of my Receiver and save a ton of money? Or is the problem in my head?

Thanks for your responses.

Jeffrey N, Toronto.

My brother recently sold his 2095. While he owned it, it played CDs quite well. I know that one time he did have a Cal. Acoustics CD tube player on this receiver. However, he bought a Marantz CC65 multiplay unit which played extroadinary well on the 2095 with the analogue outputs on the Marantz. I would listen to some players out there and see which ones not only play the cleanest sound but also have at the same time the most dynamics and fullness of sound. What ever you choose, be sure you can get a money back guarantee on the unit. While you should try out the analogue outputs of the player you choose, if it has a coax or optical out on the player, you should also try that on the receiver as well. My brother;s previous receiver was an AM-FI Pro-Logic model. He had bought a Yamaha CD player for that unit. He had to return it because the Yamaha codes on the CD player conflicted with the operations of the AM-FI unit. He then put what I think was the Marantz unit on it. We noticed that the Yamaha did not play as loud as the Marantz CD unit. This could also be your case as well.

[Wireworm5]

I had a mega-cd player that I didn't know was a bad source until I gave it to my girlfriend and bought a dvd player, then I knew. Since you say your tape deck sounds better I think that it probably isn't that good. But you don't have to spend alot of money to get a good dvd/cd player.
When I was searching for a dvd player, in the specs I noticed that the harmonic distortion was extremely low for the model I was considering. Lower than a Bryston amp I owned in the early 80's. So I knew it would probably be a good audio source, even though the reviews for this model aren't that favorable.
I would imagine that most players of today have better lasers than 4 years ago and would be an improvement over what you have now.
My .02 cents

[DMK]

You said:

"when playing CDs. I always found the sound, although very clear and accurate, too bland, with no presence or liveness to it."

"As soon as I played my first tape, I noticed a huge improvement in the sound. It sounded warmer, clearer, more like the music was being played in my living room."

You've just described perfectly why many people prefer the sound of analog over the sound of digital. The problem seems to be neither your CD player nor your receiver but your CD's. But since CD's are here to stay, you might check out some different players. On the other hand, CD players are (aside from cables) the closet thing to a commodity product the audio world has to offer, IMHO. You usually won't find much in the way of differences in the sound of CD players and, if you do, I'd question their accuracy. Certainly a CD player can be designed to sound different - let's say "warmer" since you used that term in describing amps. If that mates well with your system, I'd say go for it. But if the goal of audio is to accurately portray what's on the disc, you're straying from that goal with a euphonically designed CD player. Not that there are Audio Police that will cart you off to jail for it, of course! The REAL goal of your audio system should be to provide you with the most possible enjoyment.

First thing I'd do is compare a cassette with the same CD. You may simply prefer analog. Sounds like you're more into the natural sound of music rather than the antiseptic sound of audio. If so, you're among friends. If I listened to what the so called experts who measure rather than listen, my listening sessions would be less than fulfilling sonically. If you consistently prefer the sound of cassette tape, you might consider buying a turntable and some LP's. Or not. :) If not, just search for good sounding CD's. I'm told there are some out there.

[mtrycraft]

Just bought 10k speakers? well now you need 1k cables to support them.


Nonsense. Absolute hogwash.

Since your speakers are 10k, we must match them with a nice amp/preamp. Let's say 6k to be modest.

More silly advice.


Hmm, source needs an upgrade. turntable for 10k and DAC+transport for 5k. Oh man...since I have high end source, I should get some nice interconnects! well...there goes another several hundred...

Now you just spent 30k on some gear.

Actually, all of it is silly advice.

[mtrycraft]

I have owned a Yamaha RXV 2095 HT Receiver for four years and have never been happy with it, especially when playing CDs. I always found the sound, although very clear and accurate,

Then how can it not be realistic? Not possible.

So I've been thinking about replacing it with either a Rotel 1075, or a Denon AVR 3805, maybe the 5803, but that is really beyond my budget, or a Yamaha RXV 2400. The first two sound much warmer too me.


The way you compared them actually makes the most difference what you really heard or just perceived something not real.

Modern components, amps, Cd are rather transparent. Your speakers, room acoustics and recording quality that matters the most.


But, recently I got a Cassette Tape Deck for my system, so that I could play the 500 or so cassettes that I had put in storage. The deck, by the way, is a TEAC 860R. As soon as I played my first tape, I noticed a huge improvement in the sound. It sounded warmer, clearer, more like the music was being played in my living room.

Yes, it can sound different. It has artifacts, phas shifts, hiss, distortion that is not on a CD. Different mastering, EQ, all makes it different. Maybe you just like those differences more.

So here is my question: Is my problem, my receiver, or my CD Player?

Neither. You have different likes and dislikes.


I have a Yamaha CDC 775 (was top of line 4 years ago). And would it make sense to replace my CD Player instead of my Receiver and save a ton of money? Or is the problem in my head?

Yes, it very well could be all in your head as your protocol is prone to tremendous bias causing unreliability of what you perceive and what reality is.

[Norm Strong]

Try this. On your new cassette deck, make a copy of a CD that you already own, listening to the output of the tape deck while you're recording. Does the sound of the CD player through the tape deck sound worse than the recording itself?

[markw]

Just bought 10k speakers? well now you need 1k cables to support them.


Nonsense. Absolute hogwash.

Since your speakers are 10k, we must match them with a nice amp/preamp. Let's say 6k to be modest.

More silly advice.


Hmm, source needs an upgrade. turntable for 10k and DAC+transport for 5k. Oh man...since I have high end source, I should get some nice interconnects! well...there goes another several hundred...

Now you just spent 30k on some gear.

Actually, all of it is silly advice.

I really think he was yanking your chain. At least I hope he was.

[WmAx]

I really think he was yanking your chain. At least I hope he was.
No, I'm sure he was seroius. Just like me.

I find that one needs to spend at least 10x the cost of the speakers, on the cables for the speakers. You would not believe what Bose 901s sound like with Nordost Valhalla cables. Wow!

-Chris

[92135011]

Mtrycraft,
it's a hypothetical situation.
It's a fact that it happens. I'm not saying that it should, but it does.
Everything is for a reason.

I have no beef with you
Stop getting on peoples case.

[Studio B]

I have owned a Yamaha RXV 2095 HT Receiver for four years and have never been happy with it, especially when playing CDs. I always found the sound, although very clear and accurate, too bland, with no presence or liveness to it. So I've been thinking about replacing it with either a Rotel 1075, or a Denon AVR 3805, maybe the 5803, but that is really beyond my budget, or a Yamaha RXV 2400. The first two sound much warmer too me. The last one, frankly, I have not auditioned.

But, recently I got a Cassette Tape Deck for my system, so that I could play the 500 or so cassettes that I had put in storage. The deck, by the way, is a TEAC 860R. As soon as I played my first tape, I noticed a huge improvement in the sound. It sounded warmer, clearer, more like the music was being played in my living room.

So here is my question: Is my problem, my receiver, or my CD Player? I have a Yamaha CDC 775 (was top of line 4 years ago). And would it make sense to replace my CD Player instead of my Receiver and save a ton of money? Or is the problem in my head?

Thanks for your responses.

Jeffrey N, Toronto.



Jeffrey,
Are you using a digital connection or the analog? Try each and see if you can hear a diiference. I've noticed on some equipment, that the sound is actually better if you void the digital connection and go with the analog. Especially on a cd player.

[markw]

Without getting into a preference situation, which is really the case, let me just say that cassettes are not exactly the most accurate manner of saving music. CD's may be more accurate yet not to your liking.

Vinyl, while theoretically less accurate than CD's is preferred by many. Actually, you can fine tune the sound of yout TT by swapping cartridges to get the sound you want.

Likewise tubes are a preference as well. And speakers are the most guilty of all.

This in itself is not a bad thing. Euphonics make this whole hobby go around.

Go for whatever pleases you.

As far as CD sound goes, players can be designed to have a distinctive sound but I would expect most would shoot for an accurate, flat sound, which just might be the issue here. Do I sense a vinyl junkie in the making?

[mtrycraft]

I really think he was yanking your chain. At least I hope he was.


Well, I read it several times to see how it was implied. I may have taken him wrong? :)

[mtrycraft]

Mtrycraft,
it's a hypothetical situation.
It's a fact that it happens. I'm not saying that it should, but it does.
Everything is for a reason.

I have no beef with you
Stop getting on peoples case.


Ah, it happens. But you seem to repeat what happens instead of correcting an audio myth that this is how it must be. What is one to read if not written?

[maxg]

Couple of personal observations on CD players:

Firstly I have observed a difference in sound between players. I cant tell you what is better or worse - merely which sound I prefered. The most enjoyable CD player I have ever heard is the old Meridian 508 20 bit CD player. A friend has this unit and I regard it as the best item in his system. Funnily enough he tried the newer version a while ago (588?) and prefers his old one. I got to hear both - side by side for an afternoon and very much concured with his choice.

This was against expectation of course. I had, till then worked on the theory that the newer the DACs the better the sound - not always the case to my ears it seems.

Conversely I own a Marantz CD6000. This is a decent, but nothing special, CD player that I have owned for a number of years. Recently I picked up a $70 DVD player - just because my old Denon 3000 is a bit long in the tooth and for the money I reckoned you couldnt go wrong. Would you believe I prefer the sound from this unit over both the Denon and the Marantz? I told an audiophile friend this and of course he didnt beleive a word of it. He came round - listened, agreed with my assessment and went and bought one for himself. His long serving CD player is an old Top of the range Pioneer. After some trials he reckons the new player is better than that too.

Weird!! Just no way of telling other than to try it out for yourself. Logically a $70 POS DVD player should sound like crap - but it doesnt. We did a simple blind test on my wife and she prefered the cheapo unit over the Marantz too. I wont detail the testing - I dont think it would pass any muster scientifically but it was enough for me...

YMMV - but always check out the cheapo units first - their sound can be a revelation...

[bturk667]

I have to disagree with your point on the need to up-grade everything simply because a person bought $10,000 speakers. Simply not true!

[Jeffrey N]

Thank you for all your thoughtful responses.

After reviewing them, it has become clear to me that my problem is that I truly enjoy the analogue sound found in tapes and vinyl. Trouble is, I prefer the CD as a sound storage medium.

Guess only thing left for me to do is wait for some bright sound engineer to figure out how to make CDs and other digital sources sound like analogue sources.

I will do something else as well. I will follow the example of that person who bought an old CD player likely to be less digital sounding.

What I plan to do, specifically, is go out and buy a not too old Technics CD Player with MASH technology and a TosLink (if possible), so I do have analogue and digital connection options.

I recall that when the MASH technology first came out, certain audio critics were raving about it. I have always found Panasonic/Techics products to sound warmer than the Yamaha machines that I have.

So I will give the "warm and fuzzy" Technics a try, having tired of "cold and precise" Yamaha.

Any responses to this?

Anyway, I will let you know if I like the sound better.

And no, for those who did not take me seriously, I was perfectly serious about what I liked and did not like about my system.

Jeffrey N, Toronto

[92135011]

Bturk, I'll say once again...
It is a hypothetical situation
It happens that its a fact. Im not suggesting that it should.
Just that if you get caught up in the upgrading, You will end up spending 30k.
So the point is not to get caught up.

[mtrycraft]

Weird!! Just no way of telling other than to try it out for yourself. Logically a $70 POS DVD player should sound like crap - but it doesnt. We did a simple blind test on my wife and she prefered the cheapo unit over the Marantz too. I wont detail the testing - I dont think it would pass any muster scientifically but it was enough for me...


Not weird at all. The $ensible $ound did a DBT with an $80 RCA multi disc player and ones costing $1000s. No difference better than chance.

[E-Stat]

Not weird at all. The $ensible $ound did a DBT with an $80 RCA multi disc player and ones costing $1000s.
Would you mind linking to where you read that? I did several searches on their site under "dbt", "double blind test", "rca cd changer" and was unable to find your reference.

rw

[WmAx]

Would you mind linking to where you read that? I did several searches on their site under "dbt", "double blind test", "rca cd changer" and was unable to find your reference.

rwI assume he is referring to the #74 April/May 1999 issue where Sensible Sound reviewed the RCA RP-8065. I don't think this article is available on the web.

-Chris

[mtrycraft]

I assume he is referring to the #74 April/May 1999 issue where Sensible Sound reviewed the RCA RP-8065. I don't think this article is available on the web.

-Chris

Yes, that is the one, but it doesn't meet his criteria for a DBT, yet he has never cited one that does, especially showing audible differences. LOL.

[E-Stat]

Yes, that is the one, but it doesn't meet his criteria for a DBT
If the "he" is me, what criteria would that be?



... yet he has never cited one that does, especially showing audible differences. LOL.
If you recall, and you don't very well, I found the Tag McLaren reference to be credible because unlike EVERY OTHER REFERENCE of yours, they actually provided details as to the specifics of the test including both hardware and software. The only way to evaluate ANY test is to have knowledge of that which is being tested. Otherwise, you are relying on blind faith. Gee, isn't that what you accuse others of?

rw

[mtrycraft]

If the "he" is me, what criteria would that be?



If you recall, and you don't very well, I found the Tag McLaren reference to be credible because unlike EVERY OTHER REFERENCE of yours, they actually provided details as to the specifics of the test including both hardware and software. The only way to evaluate ANY test is to have knowledge of that which is being tested. Otherwise, you are relying on blind faith. Gee, isn't that what you accuse others of?

rw


You answered your own question.

[WmAx]

The only way to evaluate ANY test is to have knowledge of that which is being tested. Otherwise, you are relying on blind faith. Gee, isn't that what you accuse others of?Mtrycrafts next response to you is a bit indirect, IMO. What he means, I believe, is that the Sensible Sound article mentioned did not identify the specific hi-end players the RCA was compared. The Sensible Sound stated the reason they did not disclose the specific information:

"I'm not going to get into brand names used used in the comparison; that always causes an uproar from the people who happen to own the expoesive components used in the comparision."

I did not notice where they specified DBT. I believe it was a single blind test.

Therefor, the article does not hold up to scrutiny.

COuld you please link or reference me to the Tag McLaren article? I do not remember what this is, but it sounds interesting.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

Mtrycrafts next response to you is a bit indirect, IMO.
D'ya think? If you don't like the direction of the inquiry then dodge it. :)


COuld you please link or reference me to the Tag McLaren article? I do not remember what this is, but it sounds interesting.
My pleasure. It is found in the body of this rather humorous exchange with you-know-who.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=15196&postcount=50

I await a single report of any DBT that provides even an inkling of the detail that the Tag one does that SUPPORTS the party line here. I'm not saying they don't exist, but given the alleged sheer vastness of the empirical evidence, why is it no one here can point to even one such reference?

rw

[mtrycraft]

D'ya think? If you don't like the direction of the inquiry then dodge it. :)


My pleasure. It is found in the body of this rather humorous exchange with you-know-who.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=15196&postcount=50

I await a single report of any DBT that provides even an inkling of the detail that the Tag one does that SUPPORTS the party line here. I'm not saying they don't exist, but given the alleged sheer vastness of the empirical evidence, why is it no one here can point to even one such reference?

rw


Because none are as detailed as you seem to need. You still haven't come up with any quality that supports audible differences, let alone one that meets your needs. Why?

But, you may try:
"To Tweak, or Not to Tweak?", Tom Nousaine, Stereo Review, Jun 98, pg 79-81. Certainly outlines all the components used.

These identify the amps, not the cables:
"Audiolab Test: Six Power Amplifiers", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, May 1977, pg 44-50.

"Audiolab Test: Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, Jun 1981, pg 24-27.

"Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Masters, Ian G., Stereo Review, Jan 1987, pg 78-84.

"Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", Carlstrom, D., Kruger, A., & Greenhill, L., The Audio Amateur, 3/1982, pg 30, 31.

"Equipment Profile", Greenhill, L. & Clark, D., Audio, Apr 1985, pg 56-60, 82-97.

Amp Tests, Boston Audio Society Speaker, Vol 21, No.2, pg 18-20, Sep 1997.

I am sure you have read all these?

[mtrycraft]

Mtrycrafts next response to you is a bit indirect, IMO.

I did not notice where they specified DBT. I believe it was a single blind test.

Therefor, the article does not hold up to scrutiny. -Chris


He didn't specifically state single or doubl blind. But he seems to know how to do one and may have indicated it in a follow up issue, or not, but an email to him would certainly fix the speculation. I seriously doubt it was single blind.
If the protocol had problems, he would have gotten a positive outcome as that is what happens with flawed protocols, usually.
No explanation would be enough for estat.

[E-Stat]

Because none are as detailed as you seem to need.
Let me help you out here Sparky. I request a simple report of the equipment and musical content that is used. Why do your sources never provide such basic details? Tell me of what they are afraid?


You still haven't come up with any quality that supports audible differences, let alone one that meets your needs. Why?
Let me help you out again. ANY and ALL tests for anything must be put in context of that which is tested. Do you think that tests conducted on a Hyundai will mimic the results when carried out on a Ferrari? Do you any comprehension of what I am saying? When you use mediocre components, you will get mediocre results. Is there any part of that you don't understand?


But, you may try:
"To Tweak, or Not to Tweak?", Tom Nousaine, Stereo Review, Jun 98, pg 79-81. Certainly outlines all the components used.

These identify the amps, not the cables:
"Audiolab Test: Six Power Amplifiers", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, May 1977, pg 44-50.

"Audiolab Test: Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, Jun 1981, pg 24-27.

"Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Masters, Ian G., Stereo Review, Jan 1987, pg 78-84.

"Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", Carlstrom, D., Kruger, A., & Greenhill, L., The Audio Amateur, 3/1982, pg 30, 31.

"Equipment Profile", Greenhill, L. & Clark, D., Audio, Apr 1985, pg 56-60, 82-97.

Amp Tests, Boston Audio Society Speaker, Vol 21, No.2, pg 18-20, Sep 1997.

Fine. Provide access to these references and I will be happy to comment.

rw

[mtrycraft]

I request a simple report of the equipment and musical content that is used. Why do your sources never provide such basic details? Tell me of what they are afraid?


Not a big deal to many. Which music source would make you happy? Will that make others happy too? Really?


Let me help you out again. ANY and ALL tests for anything must be put in context of that which is tested.

Oh, they are. A Cd player costing $3000 should be a stellar component to compare with an $80 one, no matter what.


Do you think that tests conducted on a Hyundai will mimic the results when carried out on a Ferrari?

And, you really think a car example is in any way comparable to audio components? Really?



When you use mediocre components, you will get mediocre results.

That is your flawed assumption not supported by facts, or you would cite a few.





Provide access to these references and I will be happy to comment.

rw

Ah, you have a library. Use their resources. Do some research of your own.

[skeptic]

I just replaced my venerable old Denon DCD1520 20 bit player in my main system with a JVC 1 bit player. There is no doubt that despite the nearly identical published analog specifications for performance they sound different. Their frequency responses are different. I am hardly surprised. This audible difference between one component and another to critical listeners for many types of components is inevitable. Fortunately, it is easily and cheaply compensated for with an equalizer. It takes time and patience but the results are worth the effort and when it is done, the sound will be indistinguishable from what the older unit produced.

You can chase your tail for the rest of your life listening to people who will tell you this unit or that blows the other away. The truth is that for most electrical components within their operating parameters (the real ones, not the phonied ones) there are differences but they are far more subtle and usually correctable to where one can be made to perform pretty much like another. The exceptions are transducers where other factors besides frequency response can be important. No amount of frequency response alteration can correct for a phonograph cartridge which can't track well. And no amount of equalization can make a direct firing loudspeaker sound like a bipolar speaker or correct for poor high frequency dispersion.

It is rediculous therefore to spend much more than about $300 or $400 on a cd player. The selection should be based on features you want and need such as the number of discs it can handle at one time, the ease of using the controls, features like 4 way repeat (very valuable for musicians who like to practice along with the disc) and remote controlable volume control with a variable output (useful for people like me with old preamps, amps,and receivers which don't have a remotely controlled volume control of their own.)

We've been down the cd versus vinyl disc arguement a million times here. rb repored that he made a cd at home from a vinyl that was just about indistinguishable from the source. Many re-releases of old vinyl recordings on cd are poorly made because of sloppy production techniques where getting product out the door fast to maximize profits was the only concern or because deteriorated old analog master tapes are used as the source. Many times, what audiophiles think is dynamic compression is actually lack of dynamic compression. If some parts of a recording seem soft and "bland", it's because other parts will get much louder, much much louder by comparison, something often not possible within the limitations of analog tapes and discs. There is also far less tendency to tweak and twirl the equalization and sound effects knobs in reissuing old recordings and when they do, it isn't done by the same people in the same way as the vinyl was so they sound different. If you don't like that, you will have to settle for vinyl and tape recordings instead. However, the reality no matter what some lovers of vinyl phonograph records say, and I am one of them, is that from a performance capability point of view, cds when properly recorded can far outperform in every conceivable way, anything possible on a vinyl analog phonograph record.

[E-Stat]

This audible difference between one component and another to critical listeners for many types of components is inevitable. Fortunately, it is easily and cheaply compensated for with an equalizer. It takes time and patience but the results are worth the effort and when it is done, the sound will be indistinguishable from what the older unit produced.
What EQ settings account for a perceptibly larger and deeper soundstage? A couple years back, I heard a very good CD player vs. my reviewer friend's reference. It was easy to discern the differences between the two on his system. While I was pulling for the little guy (I did end up buying that model), the reference unit clearly was superior in several aspects.

rw

[skeptic]

Perceptions of directionality are strongly influenced by high frequencies.

[rb122]

"rb repored that he made a cd at home from a vinyl that was just about indistinguishable from the source. "

Due to requests from others and due to others claiming results that were in opposition to mine, I performed this experiment again, this time using two of the original CD-R's and making two more. Same results. I have excellent hearing and at least decent attention span and I could not reliably discern the vinyl from the CD-R made from vinyl.

"However, the reality no matter what some lovers of vinyl phonograph records say, and I am one of them, is that from a performance capability point of view, cds when properly recorded can far outperform in every conceivable way, anything possible on a vinyl analog phonograph record."

I would emphasize the word "capability" and I wouldn't argue it necessarily. But that's living in the theoretical world rather than the actual world as my experience and that of many others is that vinyl in reality outperforms CD. The other part of the test I did above was comparing the CD-R to the commercial CD in which the CD-R from vinyl was audibly superior and by a very wide margin. This lends credence to your contention about sloppy production techniques, etc. But those of us in the less-than-scientific world are less concerned about which medium has the capability than with which medium delivers the goods. I won't argue science; only sound. Interestingly, much of my argument about sound is blatantly provable - again, likely due to your point about production techniques and using worn out master tapes, but still provable if one is being honest.

[skeptic]

Comparing re-releases of classical music on cd to vinyl by top labels such as DG, Philips, RCA, CBS, etc reveals a very different story. For example, the re-releases of Leonard Bernsteins recordings on Sony/Columbia Prince Charles series of 100 discs demonstrates that the results of the extraordinary efforts they went to in order to capture the best of the original recording shows clearly. And for once, the 50hz high pass filter Columbia used in many of their orchestral recordings was not used for the re-release. All of the gimmickry used in many vinyls like Columbia 360 sound, London Phase 4, RCA Dynagroove were dropped and the results are often much more lifelike. Apparantly the record company executives feel the same way I do about the relative value and merits of classical music versus pop music. While their money is in pop, their hearts and best efforts are in classical. Perhaps this explains the difference. BTW, that was true even in vinyl days when everyone in the record industry knew that classical always got virgin vinyl for pressings while pop music got the reground grunge. With such a narrow dynamic range, it just didn't matter.

[rb122]

"Comparing re-releases of classical music on cd to vinyl by top labels such as DG, Philips, RCA, CBS, etc reveals a very different story"

Disagree, particularly on DG, although perhaps the inherent brightness in DG CD's is indeed on the recording and the LP ferrets it out. Whatever the reason, the LP is much more lifelike, IMHO. Agree on Dynagrooves - pretty pathetic on vinyl. Columbia jazz was also pretty mediocre on vinyl as well as Columbia classical.

"Apparantly the record company executives feel the same way I do about the relative value and merits of classical music versus pop music. While their money is in pop, their hearts and best efforts are in classical. Perhaps this explains the difference. BTW, that was true even in vinyl days when everyone in the record industry knew that classical always got virgin vinyl for pressings while pop music got the reground grunge. With such a narrow dynamic range, it just didn't matter."

Or perhaps it was the classical listeners that griped about pressings the most while the pop listeners were content to simply enjoy the music rather than complain about the pressings. If you're going to speculate, the possibilities are many.

[E-Stat]

Perceptions of directionality are strongly influenced by high frequencies.
I'll try turning up the HF level control on my transformers to test your assertion, but somehow I doubt that alone is going to change the image depth. I'll let you know.

Somehow I believe it is a teensy weensy more than that.

rw

[skeptic]

OK then let's not speculate. Fact; most popular music has a limited dynamic range. There are many reasons for this including that radio stations prefer them that way, they sell better that way, and there are far fewer musicians in an ensemble. Therefore the requriements for commercially acceptable recordings in regard to a quiet background at least during the vinyl LP's hayday was much more modest than for classical music.

It is also true that in the forties, fifties, and sixties, many recording executives of the larger companies like RCA, CBS, Angel, EMI, London, Philips, DG had a personal interest in classical music themselves. RCA for example went to great lengths to record music at the Metropolitan Opera, in Italy, and at many other venues with the greatest classical artists of that day even thought they were not the big money makers for them.

[mtrycraft]

What EQ settings account for a perceptibly larger and deeper soundstage? A couple years back, I heard a very good CD player vs. my reviewer friend's reference. It was easy to discern the differences between the two on his system. While I was pulling for the little guy (I did end up buying that model), the reference unit clearly was superior in several aspects.

rw


I thought you didn't speculate?

[E-Stat]

I thought you didn't speculate?
My experience does not support Skeptic's theory that the qualitative differences I hear are solely due to frequency response variations. Perhaps that is the case between his two CD players, not between the Burmester 969/970 and the GamuT CD-1.

rw

[Geoffcin]

My experience does not support Skeptic's theory that the qualitative differences I hear are solely due to frequency response variations. Perhaps that is the case between his two CD players, not between the Burmester 969/970 and the GamuT CD-1.

rw

I agree. My experience with CD players goes back to their introduction, and the qualitative differences are easy to hear by anybody with ever a cursory interest in sound quality. Perhaps the measurements are not specifically measuring what we are hearing as most modern, even cheap CD players ace the frequency response test.

[mtrycraft]

My experience does not support Skeptic's theory that the qualitative differences I hear are solely due to frequency response variations. Perhaps that is the case between his two CD players, not between the Burmester 969/970 and the GamuT CD-1.

rw


I suppose your experience cannot be unreliable, due to flawed and biased methodology?
As is, you will never know one way or the other.

[mtrycraft]

My experience with CD players goes back to their introduction, and the qualitative differences are easy to hear by anybody with ever a cursory interest in sound quality.

Many have tried, few have succeeded and for know reasons, not mythical ones.

Unfortunately most of the claims are unreliable, like yours. So, we have nothing to judge by.



Perhaps the measurements are not specifically measuring what we are hearing as most modern, even cheap CD players ace the frequency response test.

Or, perhaps you are not hearing what you think you are. You have never demonstrated you hear what you claim to. So, speculation is simple and easy. Answers will never come from that.

[E-Stat]

I suppose your experience cannot be unreliable, due to flawed and biased methodology? As is, you will never know one way or the other.
I don't share your insecurity. In the case I mentioned, my reviewer friend asked me my thoughts after hearing the two for about fifteen minutes with a very nice Philip Glass piano recording. I made three specific observations. He agreed that he heard the same distinctions with comparative listening over a period about a month.

You know, I'll bet you are just a bundle of joy to listen to music with. For that matter, do you actually listen to music?

E: Say, Mtry isn't it neat the way Michael Hedges can hit a clean harmonic anytime on his guitar. Did 'ya just hear that last quiet one?

M: You didn't hear that. No one has proven it with unbiased testing yet. Your hearing is too unreliable for you to hear such details.

E: Here, let's cue the track backwards and listen again. Here it is again. What do you think?

M: Think of me as a ditchdigger. What I think is unimportant. You are just deluding yourself to think that you are hearing anything.

rw

[Arch]

LOL! Hey E-Stat that's funny!

[thepogue]

Thank you for all your thoughtful responses.

After reviewing them, it has become clear to me that my problem is that I truly enjoy the analogue sound found in tapes and vinyl. Trouble is, I prefer the CD as a sound storage medium.

Guess only thing left for me to do is wait for some bright sound engineer to figure out how to make CDs and other digital sources sound like analogue sources.

I will do something else as well. I will follow the example of that person who bought an old CD player likely to be less digital sounding.

What I plan to do, specifically, is go out and buy a not too old Technics CD Player with MASH technology and a TosLink (if possible), so I do have analogue and digital connection options.

I recall that when the MASH technology first came out, certain audio critics were raving about it. I have always found Panasonic/Techics products to sound warmer than the Yamaha machines that I have.

So I will give the "warm and fuzzy" Technics a try, having tired of "cold and precise" Yamaha.

Any responses to this?

Anyway, I will let you know if I like the sound better.

And no, for those who did not take me seriously, I was perfectly serious about what I liked and did not like about my system.

Jeffrey N, Toronto

still do...in fact i have played it next to my Parasound 1000 and a Adcom 5XX cd player and it sounded warmer but less detailed. I think the whole cd/tape/vinal thing has to do with the detail of the music....them more exacting, the more highs, the more chance of being etchie (is that a word? :) I've got a tube set-up in one room of my house and love running a cd back and forth 'tween systems...the tube/klipsh set up has less detail than my Paradigm/adcom sys (no surprise there) and although the tube seem more user friendly the detailing of the second sys. is far more impressive...some day I'd like the have the best of both worlds in one set up but I'm to cheap to go buy it outright...I's a second and third hand man....but I'm still on a Martin Logan hunt grrrrr.....if ya wanna sell your cd plaer throw it this way!! ;)

[Hivihead]

When you play any analog source(turntable, tape deck, etc), it always sounds warmer and softer than digital's. Remember, CD players rely on '0' and '1' as signal passes thru the D/A converter. That's why a 24bit CD player sounds better 16bit one. Listento a good CD player and you'll know what i am talking about.

[mtrycraft]

Remember, CD players rely on '0' and '1' as signal passes thru the D/A converter. That's why a 24bit CD player sounds better 16bit one. Listento a good CD player and you'll know what i am talking about.

No, not really. 24 bits give a dynamic range that is well beyond anyone ability to utilize by 6 bits. You cannot hear it.
Stewart of Meridian indicates that 18 bits is about max detectable.

[E-Stat]

No, not really... You cannot hear it.
Stewart of Meridian indicates that 18 bits is about max detectable.
FYI, 18 is a greater number than 16 negating your first sentence.

rw

[mtrycraft]

FYI, 18 is a greater number than 16 negating your first sentence.

rw


Yep, J. Stewart talked about a very small % who can tell a very small difference, under the right condition. You don't qualify.
So, it doesn't negate my 16 bit.
You should really try some special CD, DBT, that has different bit resolution. Don't expect to pass it though. You won't, guaranteed.

[WmAx]

Yep, J. Stewart talked about a very small % who can tell a very small difference, under the right condition. You don't qualify.
So, it doesn't negate my 16 bit.
You should really try some special CD, DBT, that has different bit resolution. Don't expect to pass it though. You won't, guaranteed.
I would appreciate the specific reference/article identity.

Thanks.

-Chris

[Rikki]

I don't think upgrading a CD player by itself would make any difference in sound. The basic technology for a $100 Cd player is the same as it is for a $1000 Cd player. Upgrading from a receiver to separate pre-amp/amp/tuner components could make a difference since you'd be going from apples to most likely sweeter oranges. But as some have alluded to, if your receiver is decent, even the amp upgrade may not make a huge difference.

[E-Stat]

So, it doesn't negate my 16 bit.
I see. You were just insulting Hivihead by assuming he is not among those who can hear such differences.

rw

[gonefishin]

Can your CD Player make a difference?


yes, it can make a difference