What makes one CD player perform better then the other?

[gypsyhick]

Why does a $2000 player sound better than a $200 player? I do not doubt that the expensive one sounds better, but I want to know why. I find it hard to believe that one CD player will read 1's and 0's better than the other. A 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0. How can the cheaper player screw that up? So I am guessing that the following determine the performance: the Digital to Analog converter, connectors, and the way it amps the signal to line level. But there must be something else involved to jump a players price to $2000. Can any of you audiphilles out there elucidate this topic. Thanks.

One final note: why spend $2000 on a CD player if there is a cheaper SACD player.

GH

[Resident Loser]

"I do not doubt that the expensive one sounds better..."

One of the biggest myths in audio is that the expensive stuff sounds better...if I'm not mistaken, most CD players use one of a few readily available transports(possibly the whole shootin' match)...other hardware, D/A converters and output devices, discrete components as opposed to ICs, design and packaging, power supplies...marketing, advertising, the lure of the exotic and expensive and the potential for bragging rights...would you want to say you own a Kobe or a Krell? Incremental sonic improvements(if there actually are any) usually have a very big price tag..

There are some basics to digital all the players must adhere to...it's the bells and whistles after the fact that increase the costs...

And I'm not sayin' all the stuff sounds the same, I don't have any frame of reference to claim that they do, as I'm really into analog. My exposure to digital is limited and what I have heard( starting with the original $1000USD Hitachi consumer unit way back when) seems to be quite similar...the software transfer has "improved"; mixing and mastering techniques have changed with the media...I think I prefer analog...except the absolute background silence of digital is cool...

jimHJJ(...but that's just my opinion...)

[mtrycraft]

Why does a $2000 player sound better than a $200 player?

Human psychology is one factor causing human bias and gullibility a very common human trait. Not to mention the ease with which the mind can be confused.


I do not doubt that the expensive one sounds better, but I want to know why.


That is unfortunate. You need to be skeptical in the consumer marketplace. Audio is no exception.

I find it hard to believe that one CD player will read 1's and 0's better than the other.

Me too :)

A 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0. How can the cheaper player screw that up?

Not easilly, that is for sure.

So I am guessing that the following determine the performance: the Digital to Analog converter, connectors, and the way it amps the signal to line level.

Yep, guessing.

But there must be something else involved to jump a players price to $2000.

How about the name on the front? You think that is free? Marketing? Marketeers are expert at balooning the price to the stratosphere.



One final note: why spend $2000 on a CD player if there is a cheaper SACD player.

GH

Good question. One is looking to impress friends? Braggin rights? One is trying to improve the economy?

[E-Stat]

One final note: why spend $2000 on a CD player if there is a cheaper SACD player.

GH

Good question. One is looking to impress friends? Braggin rights? One is trying to improve the economy?
Which $2k+ CDPs have you heard?

rw

[Poss]

Why does a $2000 player sound better than a $200 player? I do not doubt that the expensive one sounds better, but I want to know why. I find it hard to believe that one CD player will read 1's and 0's better than the other. A 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0.
Reading the zeroes and ones is hardly a problem. Any cheap CD drive unit can do this rather well. The better units have better reliabillity that's all.


How can the cheaper player screw that up? So I am guessing that the following determine the performance: the Digital to Analog converter, connectors, and the way it amps the signal to line level.
It appears you know why so why are you asking? It may seem weird nowadays but good engineering tends to cost good money. It's funny how you ask this question about a CD player but it would not cross your mind to ask the same about an Audi A6 vs a Toyota Corolla. It's the same thing you know?


But there must be something else involved to jump a players price to $2000. Can any of you audiphilles out there elucidate this topic.Thanks.
There isn't. That's if you discount some of the high end manufacturers greed.

None of the resident "audiophiles" will ever convince you otherwise, and after this thread's count will reach 250 messages (some of which will be pure junk, some actually trying to explain it nicely with facts and topped by the charge of the ABX brigade) everyone who participates will be left with a bitter taste and will be back to square one.

If you're serious enough, nothing is more valuable than a little personal experimentation but If you search for validation this is not the right way of doing it and this ain't the place you'll get it.


One final note: why spend $2000 on a CD player if there is a cheaper SACD player.

GH
How many CDs do you own? Would you scramble to purchase them all again in SACD format? I'm merely asking because decent SACD players that also provide good CD replay are a quite a bit more expensive than $200 (at least to the best of my knowledge).

Peace! (if possible)

[mtrycraft]

Which $2k+ CDPs have you heard?

rw
Irrelevant what I can hear or not hear, but you know this so why pee on your foot?

You have any evidence that they make an audible difference? That is th eissue at hand, evidence to support audible difference. And no, your fairy tales don't count beans. Of course, if you have evidence, your post it. You have nothing.

[E-Stat]

Irrelevant what I can hear or not hear, but you know this so why pee on your foot?
I just love hearing such useful information from the authoritative voice of non-experience. I'm sure others value it just as much as do I. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Reading the zeroes and ones is hardly a problem. Any cheap CD drive unit can do this rather well. The better units have better reliabillity that's all.


It appears you know why so why are you asking? It may seem weird nowadays but good engineering tends to cost good money. It's funny how you ask this question about a CD player but it would not cross your mind to ask the same about an Audi A6 vs a Toyota Corolla. It's the same thing you know?


There isn't. That's if you discount some of the high end manufacturers greed.

None of the resident "audiophiles" will ever convince you otherwise, and after this thread's count will reach 250 messages (some of which will be pure junk, some actually trying to explain it nicely with facts and topped by the charge of the ABX brigade) everyone who participates will be left with a bitter taste and will be back to square one.

If you're serious enough, nothing is more valuable than a little personal experimentation but If you search for validation this is not the right way of doing it and this ain't the place you'll get it.


How many CDs do you own? Would you scramble to purchase them all again in SACD format? I'm merely asking because decent SACD players that also provide good CD replay are a quite a bit more expensive than $200 (at least to the best of my knowledge).

Peace! (if possible)

I must say, that I love this post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Geoffcin]

Why does a $2000 player sound better than a $200 player? I do not doubt that the expensive one sounds better, but I want to know why. I find it hard to believe that one CD player will read 1's and 0's better than the other. A 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0. How can the cheaper player screw that up? So I am guessing that the following determine the performance: the Digital to Analog converter, connectors, and the way it amps the signal to line level. But there must be something else involved to jump a players price to $2000. Can any of you audiphilles out there elucidate this topic. Thanks.

One final note: why spend $2000 on a CD player if there is a cheaper SACD player.

GH

Audiophile grade players are made to higher quality specs, and with lower total production. This leads to higher prices, some would say exponentially higher compared to quality. You don't have to spend 2k to get good sound, but there IS a difference. The people who buy this type of equipment are no fools, and are VERY decerning when it comes to quality.

Bottom line; If it didn't sound better, then it wouldnt sell.

Is it worth the extra cost? That is a question only you can answer.

[woodman]

Audiophile grade players are made to higher quality specs, and with lower total production. This leads to higher prices, some would say exponentially higher compared to quality. You don't have to spend 2k to get good sound, but there IS a difference. The people who buy this type of equipment are no fools, and are VERY decerning when it comes to quality.

Bottom line; If it didn't sound better, then it wouldnt sell.

Is it worth the extra cost? That is a question only you can answer.


Your post contains some granules of truth, but some complete fallacies as well .... the main one being this one:

... If it didn't sound better, then it wouldnt sell.

That is pure, unadulterated HOGWASH, and anyone that actually knows anything about the industry knows that to be so. There are a multitude of audio products being sold every day that don't sound any better than competing products that only cost a fraction as much. How something actually sounds seldom comes into play at all in this scenario ... it's the perception that since it costs waaaaaay more, then it must sound better as well that drives the sale.

[E-Stat]

You have any evidence that they make an audible difference?
Just curious, how do you determine which tires to buy for your car?

rw

[mtrycraft]

Just curious, how do you determine which tires to buy for your car?

rw


Certainly not by trying them, nor go to friends for brand names. CR has been testing them very well for a few days now, or is it decades?

[mtrycraft]

I just love hearing such useful information from the authoritative voice of non-experience. I'm sure others value it just as much as do I. :)

rw


Naw, you value audio stories imagined by others, and yourself :)

[mtrycraft]

Audiophile grade players are made to higher quality specs,

Well, they certainly can look museum quality on the outside or in, but that doesn;'t add anything to sound, just a myth.

You don't have to spend 2k to get good sound, but there IS a difference. The people who buy this type of equipment are no fools, and are VERY decerning when it comes to quality.

I am sure the evidence must be out there someplace to support this? Must have eluded me and others all this time. Can you help us out where? Please?

Bottom line; If it didn't sound better, then it wouldnt sell.

Hard to compete with woodman on this, so I won't :D

Is it worth the extra cost? That is a question only you can answer.


We agree :)

[Geoffcin]

Your post contains some granules of truth, but some complete fallacies as well .... the main one being this one:

... If it didn't sound better, then it wouldnt sell.

That is pure, unadulterated HOGWASH, and anyone that actually knows anything about the industry knows that to be so. There are a multitude of audio products being sold every day that don't sound any better than competing products that only cost a fraction as much. How something actually sounds seldom comes into play at all in this scenario ... it's the perception that since it costs waaaaaay more, then it must sound better as well that drives the sale.

I assure you I know a bit about this industry, and the people who but these players. On top of that I've actually HEARD quite a few of them in a varity of systems. the only HOGWASH that's getting thrown into the fan is that the people who but these players are buying it because they cost more.

[gypsyhick]

Ok...While there has been some interesting bantering going on, the answer I'm looking for has yet to be posted. It appears I need to better explain myself. I don't seek validation. I can't buy one. I'm just curious and don't - at the moment - have time to listen to these expensive CD players. What I am looking for, in essence, is the champion of the 2k CD player. That lucky soul who has no hesitation dropping an impressive load of cash on equipment. I don't want sarcasm. I want a pendantic reply to the kin of wine snobbery.

Cheers,

GH

[FLZapped]

Which $2k+ CDPs have you heard?

rw
Heard how? -Bruce

[FLZapped]

I just love hearing such useful information from the authoritative voice of non-experience. I'm sure others value it just as much as do I. :)

rw

And your experience amounts to what? How does it establish scientific fact or validate claims made?

Or do you think that having a piano in your living room qualifies?

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

Heard how? -Bruce
I guess that only pertains to those who use them for musical reproduction.

rw

[E-Stat]

And your experience amounts to what? How does it establish scientific fact or validate claims made?
I'm not a labcoat and couldn't care less what is statistically proven. Nor does anyone else who buys any number of expensive consumer goods that defy simplistic measurements. Do you remember our conversation about tires? Remember your thinking that the UTQG rating actually meant something? Do the engineers at Ferrari and Honda (or for that matter, their customeres) really care that the Bridgestone S-02 tires they specify on their products "rate" no better than ones costing a fourth as much?


Or do you think that having a piano in your living room qualifies?
That is merely a piece of the puzzle. One does develop a musical memory of how live unamplified music should sound. My garage Advent-Threshold-Pioneer system never sounds like my wife playing the piano. The downstairs system, on the other hand, does to these ears. What does qualify is extended exposure to a wide range of high performance components. I have experienced what is possible. And my new $70 Toshiba 3960 is not even in the same ballpark as my GamuT. If you limit your driving experience to a Saturn, you will have absolutely no perspective as to what high performance cars can do. Pick up a Car & Driver sometime and read one of their full reviews. You will find some simplistic and largely useless performance metrics. Which are wholely inadequate by themselves. Far more importantly, you will read "opinions" on how the vehicle feels under various conditions. They do not share your insecurity in the ability to characterize the driving characteristics of that which they test.

rw

[Poss]

Ok... I don't want sarcasm. I want a pendantic reply to the kin of wine snobbery.

Cheers,

GH
It's a bit (a little pun intended) late and I'm too tired for an absolute "pedantic" reply. The cold reality is there are $2k players out there which are probably worth less than half of that sonically. One example : Linn Genki. I was so thoroughly unimpressed by its performance it was not funny. It is certainly better than my 700Can$ Rotel RCD950 however not $1800 better by any stretch of imagination. But just because it is Linn the press loves it (as it also inexplicably loves the LP12) therefore those Scots see fit to charge a hefty premium for the privilege of owning one. One of my friends took the 2500Can$ plunge and he absolutely loves the thing. He probably has to...

Rotel used to have a better engineered product (actually two the 990 and 991) who had textbook benchmark performance and superior sound for significantly less cash. Unfortunatelly they were too expensive for a Rotel, they caught some so-so reviews (Sam Tellig even called the 991 an overcooked 971; I wonder if he ever gave it a serious listen) sold poorly and subsequently got cancelled. That's bussiness... (Anyone there willing to sell me one of those puppies second hand? No? I thought so...).

And there's the CD player that DESERVED every one of those no less than 840000 pennies the today defunct Sonic Frontiers asked for, the SF1. Flooring, drop dead gorgeous sonic performance, ear candy at its best. Took one home to see how it will fit along all my other junk and the day I realised I couldn't possibly afford it is one that remains forever marked as a the "$%ck my puny salary day" in my calendar. Well now I could maybe get a second mortgage on my house and afford it but (as with the Rotel 990 or 991) all the owners that were insane enough to plunk the cash for one are seemingly not insane enough to part with it.

Anyway... If you agree that better engineering gives you better results, you're halfway there. Price however DOES NOT always reflect that. In Rotel's case they were probably not making enough profit on it to break even and that's because this company refuses (or at least refused) to gouge their customers and pretty much like most "middle end" manufacturers out there (the likes of Cambridge, Arcam and so on) they engineer a product and then set a price, contrary to other companies that first set a price, then a profit and the rest is left for engineering/ manufacturing.

The cost of tooling alone for a specialty product that will sell in small numbers is VERY significant and it is adding up to the one you pay for better parts (ever checked the price on high quality, beefy capacitors lately? or the price on NOS tubes?). Manually pairing a set of op-amps within 0.5dB isn't particulary cheap either. Some of those will reap sonic benefits, some will not but all of them contribute to the higher price a better engineered product usually commends. It is a little difficult to sepparate which companies are charging for just air from the ones that don't. Actually scrap that. It is actually easy if you own a decent headphone amp and a pair of good headphones. A short but thorough listening session will quickly sepparate the wheat from the chaff and if it is not, you can SAFELY save yourself quite a bit of dough. Make no mistake though: there IS a difference in sonic character even between $200 players and if you cannot hear it, you should deffinitely be happy.

I'm not sarcastic or "golden eared" or arrogant and if it appears so I sincerely apologize as it is completely unintentional. Hearing those differences is a curse really. It makes one lust over stuff that one could hardly afford. It makes one bring a small amp, a nice CD player and a pair of Grados to the office because that one cannot bear the sound of his CAD workstation's DVD unit. You know... it makes one do weird stuff...

I'm not quite sure how all this will help you. It is however my personal first hand experience, take it for what is worth.

Peace!

[Mark of Cenla]

This is my first post on this website. There have been many good points made about this topic. I do know that there are valid sonic differences between CD players. In all audio gear, the higher the price, the more one pays for smaller improvements in sound. As someone said above, you have to decide if paying much more for a small improvement is worth it to you.

Only an engineer (or someone very learned about electronics) can explain WHY one sounds better than another. Some of the factors may include power supply, digital to analog converters, internal preamp quality. All of these affect the sound. Just using higher quality capacitors, diodes, etc. can also make a difference.

I have two components that will play CD's: a Sony DVP-NS315 (DVD player)and a TEAC RW-D200 (double deck CD recorder). The TEAC is the CD player in my bedroom system because it is more convenient to record there than in the living room. But I did once compare them on the main system in the living room. The TEAC had better bass and more overall richness. There is a difference, but I cannot explain why. Peace.

[hifitommy]

How does it establish scientific fact or validate claims made?
-Bruce
MY experience amounts to plenty as does that of many others here and elsewhere. scientific facts are many times established by observation. my experience is that of observation and i observe that CDPs sound different from one another.

The reasons for that are multitude, just look inside several CDPs and see how differently they are laid out and the different levels of quality of parts and construction there are. Now and again, an inexpensive player will sound exemplary such as my sony ns500v.

the $2k players are made quite well, and will very likely sound better than the veritable $80 RCA so loved by some on this board. personally, if i were planning a $2k expenditure on a player it would be for vinyl. in the meantime, what i have will do.

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html)

[FLZapped]

I guess that only pertains to those who use them for musical reproduction.

rw

And that establishes what then, beyond the ability to play a disc? -Bruce

[FLZapped]

I'm not a labcoat and couldn't care less what is statistically proven.


Yet you make claims of superior sound that cannot be verified, so what good are they, then?



Nor does anyone else who buys any number of expensive consumer goods that defy simplistic measurements.


How do you know? You just got done saying you don't care. And if they don't, how can you explain the sucess of Consumer Reports?

You make so many claims and that's the problem, until validated are useless to be used to establish fact. Yet, like Jon Risch, you keep making them, thinking that they will suddenly become truesimply because they are repeated over and over again.

-Bruce.

[FLZapped]

MY experience amounts to plenty as does that of many others here and elsewhere. scientific facts are many times established by observation. my experience is that of observation and i observe that CDPs sound different from one another.

Those scientific observations differ from yours as there are controls in place to reduce the possibility of errant results, unlike your experience, which has none. There are also checks and balances in science, if you remember the "cold fusion" fiasco.

-Bruce

[Thomas_A]

Why does a $2000 player sound better than a $200 player? I do not doubt that the expensive one sounds better, but I want to know why. I find it hard to believe that one CD player will read 1's and 0's better than the other. A 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0. How can the cheaper player screw that up? So I am guessing that the following determine the performance: the Digital to Analog converter, connectors, and the way it amps the signal to line level. But there must be something else involved to jump a players price to $2000. Can any of you audiphilles out there elucidate this topic. Thanks.

One final note: why spend $2000 on a CD player if there is a cheaper SACD player.

GH

If there are differences, they are not related to price. There are many cheap and expensive CD players sound so similar that there is very very hard to differentiate any of them. If possible at all.

The performance differences can be related to the D/A conversion. During extreme testing conditions it is possible to verify differences more easily, but during normal music listening these differences disappear.

There are CD players that deliberately change the frequency response that are audibly different. I've noticed that some cheaper DVD players may give high frequent sounds from the motor drive (mechanical sounds, not through the speakers), which is audible during quiet passages in the music.

Some players have higher production costs due to "nice package". If the looks are important, then this usually gives higher price.

T

[E-Stat]

And that establishes what then, beyond the ability to play a disc? -Bruce
Heard how?

You failed to grasp the concept of "hearing" an audio component. Tell me, what do you do with yours?

rw

[E-Stat]

Yet you make claims of superior sound that cannot be verified, so what good are they, then?
There are a number of people in the world who use other's educated opinions as a starting point for narrowing down their choices for devices that defy quantification by simplistic metrics.


And if they don't, how can you explain the sucess of Consumer Reports?
The same way you explain the success of McDonald's. The same way you explain the success of Wal-Mart. The same way you explain the success of... Do you get the picture?


You make so many claims and that's the problem, until validated are useless to be used to establish fact.
I guess where we differ is that I don't think of others as mindless automatons, incapable of independent thought. It is for others to freely validate or not, depending upon their circumstances.

rw

[996turbo]

and grounding have a profound influence on players. In order to increase resolution you need to reduce the noise floor. At the same time making sure the supply is well grounded. Electronics in order to have a low noise floor need well built power supplies. These supplies are both costly and esoteric. Vibration control is also extremely important. The higher end units go to extreme measures to combat these problems. Like all things at the fringe of performance you must pay for it.

[Thomas_A]

So E-Stat,

what are the differences you percieve between the Toshiba and the GamuT? In the GamuT CD1, the f response falls -1.1 dB at 20 kHz, around -0.35 dB at 10 kHz and so on using non-balanced outputs. Using pre-emphasis the player's f response starts to fall at 1 kHz with 0.2-0.3 dB drop at 3-4 kHz.

Although distortion is very low, this result is far from "high-end" performance.

The Toshiba 9200 may not compare to your Toshiba model but it is basically flat, with the exception of the low bass (-0.5 dB at 10 Hz). Distorsion is, similar to GamuT, very low. But all things equal the GamuT falls short of the Toshiba 9200. Now the Toshiba 9200 is quite expensive. The old Musical Fidelity X-24K DAC, cheaper, measures equal to or better than the Toshiba.

I have made tests using the X-24K dac against 3 different players, Marantz CD6000, a Toshiba and an Audiolab. No audible difference could be established among 4 listeners, except for a difference attributed to 0.5 dB level difference.

The speakers were DIY active three-way speakers with low distorsion at moderate listening levels, ±1 dB frequency response 40 Hz-19 kHz, damping panels in behind speakers effective down ?100 Hz.. Amps were Audio Analogue, Rotel, NAD, parametric EQ of one standing wave (47 Hz).

T

[RGA]

blahblahblahblahblah

Man alive. Cd players are pre-preamplifiers - if you think an amp sounds different then you must believe a cd player could sound different...at least most are consistant.

See Hi-fi choice - a panel of listeners - even some from the manufacturer's presidents themselves sit in and review gear(and don't always choose their own as best - now that's funny). They listen to everything blind and level matched. Not a test - but close than any other publication. They do find differences:

http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_list.asp?category=CDV&subcategory=CDPLY

[hifitommy]

Those scientific observations differ from yours as there are controls in place to reduce the possibility of errant results, unlike your experience, which has none. There are also checks and balances in science, if you remember the "cold fusion" fiasco.

-Bruce
i am a nuclear medicine technologist, and yes, i have conducted scientific experiments, so you can stop the pseudo-scientist stance.

nobody is trying to dupe the public out of great quantities of money here. wadia cd players (about 12K for transport and d/a) DO sound better than the low priced spread. for those that have the money, it is worth it. my friend who is a ucla valedictorian graduate of ucla medical school in radiology has one and numerous other COSTLY items. he has probably attended more LIVE music than you have listened to recorded.

he owned infinity servo statik speakers serial #001 bought from his friend arnie nudell. i assure you, if it was BS, he would have been the first to bark so. his current speakers are duntech sovereigns with rowland and krell electronics.

believe what you will, the high priced spread DOES taste better. sometimes it can be had for less, but not often. eventually, the trickle down effect works too.

[Thomas_A]

RGA,

I don't "believe" anything. If an amp "sounds" or rather "feels" different due to a fall of -2 dB at 8 Hz, most here would never be able to detect this, right? And they would not care.

Likewise, if some CD players are audible different during extreme testing conditions, what is the probablity that people hear these effects during normal conditions? Also all audible differences are easily explaied by measurements. There is no "magic" involved.

Now the GamuT CD1 does not measure flat, especially with rare records that have de-emphasis. It is nothing magic with this.

The HiFi Choice tests does not reveal any data of testing method or the number of correct choices, so what is there to discuss?

T

[plextor guy]

Why does a $2000 player sound better than a $200 player? I do not doubt that the expensive one sounds better, but I want to know why. I find it hard to believe that one CD player will read 1's and 0's better than the other. A 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0. How can the cheaper player screw that up? So I am guessing that the following determine the performance: the Digital to Analog converter, connectors, and the way it amps the signal to line level. But there must be something else involved to jump a players price to $2000. Can any of you audiphilles out there elucidate this topic. Thanks.

One final note: why spend $2000 on a CD player if there is a cheaper SACD player.

GH

But those reasons are confined to esthetics and pride of ownership. This is a weak example but Motor Trend did an article recently comparing a Pontiac GTO to a Mercedes CLK55 AMG. Both cars look alike (to the uninitiated) , perform similarly and will probably wear comparably. The Mercedes costs more than twice as much as the Pontiac and will soak up many thousands more in routine maintenance. Which is the better car? Most people would say the Mercedes because that is the popular perception. If performance alone is the deciding factor, the Mercedes is clearly a foolish buy. With 'high end' audio product, speakers excluded, you're usually paying for higher quality materials, esthetics and pride of ownership, not necessarily performance. To answer your question, there is no reason to pay 2K for a cdp if performance is all that matters to you. Buy what you want based on features, buy from a reputable manufacturer and consider a DVD player rather than a cdp. CDP's are obsolete.

[skeptic]

There will always be people who will try to optomize every aspect of an idea in the belief that the addition of even small incremental improvements in each of a large a number of factors will add up to an audible improvement. In the case of digital compact discs, this is a naive and false assumption. The compact disc system has several inherent aspects to it which cause it to either function perfectly or not at all at least in the digital domain. That is one of its many great advantages. Of the differences that matter, the ability to read damaged discs, to quickly access different tracks, and to be immune to outside vibrations are important. Fortunately, these players have evolved to the point where even the least expensive of them do very well in these respects. Then there is the D/A converter. All of them are invariably semiconductor chips and which one you choose may result in small differences in sound. Linearity of conversion, lack of background noise, freedom of distortion, flatness of frequency response all play factors but again, even the least expensive of them today do a fine job. Finally, the handling of the analog signal meaning the choice of which active devices, transistors or tubes, which ones, how they are used, can also have some effect. Yet the truth is that these differences are small and it is highly questionable if any one is actually better than another. The real differences in sound I have noticed other than some awful sounding early models are minor differences in frequency response and some of them may be deliberate. For someone like me who will patiently equalize every component individually to get what sounds to me like flat response, these differences are unimportant. To others who won't even utter the word equalizer, depending on how they compliment the sound of the rest of the rest of their sound system, any one might sound better than another.

The cost of manufacturing electronic equipment and therefore the price does not always reflect the quality. This is especially true when units are made in relatively small numbers by people who have to pay the high cost of American or European labor and who use subcontractors in these counties. The same or equalivent quality can be obtained at much lower cost by mass production which is the expertise of large manufacturers. Using overseas labor in third world countries helps keep costs low too.

[FLZapped]

i am a nuclear medicine technologist, and yes, i have conducted scientific experiments, so you can stop the pseudo-scientist stance.

You still haven't established that there are any controls on your "listening."



nobody is trying to dupe the public out of great quantities of money here. wadia cd players (about 12K for transport and d/a) DO sound better than the low priced spread.

Based on what?



he owned infinity servo statik speakers serial #001 bought from his friend arnie nudell. i assure you, if it was BS, he would have been the first to bark so. his current speakers are duntech sovereigns with rowland and krell electronics.

So.

So far, I still see nothing that establishes fact in all your ranting.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

Heard how?

You failed to grasp the concept of "hearing" an audio component. Tell me, what do you do with yours?

rw

And you fail to grasp the concept of what it takes to establish fact from fiction.

-Bruce

[hifitommy]

You still haven't established that there are any controls on your "listening."
Based on what? So far, I still see nothing that establishes fact in all your ranting.
-Bruce
you have to be FREAKING DEAF!! go listen. some things dont require hirsch-houck labs to verify. this is one of them.

instead of posting here, you should be rereading you consumer reports back issues. that will reinforce your 'BELIEFS'. then you and emptycrafts can sit and nod in agreement at each other.

[RGA]

RGA,

what is the probablity that people hear these effects during normal conditions?
T

A DBT is unrelated to normal listening conditions - you do at least realize this right? This was part of first year psychology testing and highly debated in subject testing in brain research.

Cd players measure very different ly in the audible band between 20hz and 20khz - whether you'll always notice it or whether you will in a DBT to a statistically significant number and whether you will hear it in a non testing environment over a longer periodoftime is not correlational because such a test has not been executed.

***The HiFi Choice tests does not reveal any data of testing method or the number of correct choices, so what is there to discuss***

But I never said it was a test...nor do they - they are not testing people to see IF there is a difference - that would add a stressor on the listener and then not be valid because that is not the way people normally listen to their equipment. The difference is assumed to be there. Then the cd players or amplifiers are level matched are hidden from view(and speakers too for that matter) and a panel of reviewers evaluate the sound on the sound's merit(s) by taking notes. They compare several models in a general price range. Then taking the notes for sound quality the veil is lifted and the prices revealed - they have to review the units on sight as well to evaluate features and ease of se and build quality. They assign a build quality sound quality and Value rating - ie; how expensive it is in relation to what you get elsewhere. Which is why from time to time even their usual favorites like Creek or Arcam get rubished.

They also provide extensive measurements - They are a magazine so they don't give you much info on the web-site - and it is usually several issues old on the site.

They have made notes on certain cd players that if not level matched may come out sounding a lot better but because they did a blind level matched audition those aspects would not swing the favour of the listener. Not all panelists agree on the sound of the system in the same room at the same listening level. One person will think X speaker has excellent bass while another thinks it is overly coloured.

This is not a knock on DB testing - it is a knock on the conclusions being drawn from their use...and anyone with any knowledge of the study of testing human subjects knows all this or should - those that only know statistical models don't know enough to speak intelligently on this subject.

[Thomas_A]

RGA,

DBTs are NOT unrelated to normal listening situations. Turn down the treble, and you will hear the effect during open as well as DBT conditions.There is a lot in the research of audiology and psychology on long term and short term audibility. For a given signal it is much easier to do fast switching to hear a difference. What might be the case for long-term listening is that certain signals or music passages might reveal any faults more easily than others. That's why certain tests such as low-bass content, low-level recorded signals at high volume and transients are more revealing than streaming music and is often chosen for testings made by the Swedish Audio Technical Society. Again differences are not heard if you play a signal one day and change to another one the other day. But comparing the signals with very short intervals makes it obvious. And yes, I've done it, it is easier to hear the difference with fast-swicthing than during long-term listening and slow switching.

Regarding HiFi choice's tests:

Why do they "assume" a difference from start? Since they assume a difference and describe them by subjective impressions, they would really be able to do an objective test and verify this, don't you agree? Why don't they use a reference to compare with too see if there is a difference? If there is a difference, they can attribute the difference as bright, dull or whatever characteristics they hear. This would be the most objective procedure. As such there is nothing from their tests that really imply an audible difference.

Or why don't they have a test leader that makes a similar test with only 3 players and repeat the test randomly with 10 trials (3 x 10 in a random fashion). If they would score identical in their subjective impressions on each player 10 times, they could validate whether the test method works or not. As it is now there is nothing saying that their method is reliable.

T

[E-Stat]

And you fail to grasp the concept of what it takes to establish fact from fiction.
Ah, your usual dodge from my question. Let's try again. What do you do with your audio equipment if not to hear it? Watch the LCD display ? Just like to push buttons?

rw

[WmAx]

But, some CD players have such pretty lights. :-)

-Chris



Nice political dodge from my question. Let's try again. What do you do with your audio equipment? Watch the LEDs ?

rw

[E-Stat]

But, some CD players have such pretty lights. :-)
Actually, that's the reason I spent $3k on my GamuT CD-1. It has very pretty blue LEDs.

rw

[E-Stat]

Certainly not by trying them, nor go to friends for brand names. CR has been testing them very well for a few days now, or is it decades?
I guess that is your speed.

Ever notice that they never test the highest performance tires? Most assuredly not. Do tell me though which tire they favor in their infinite wisdom.

rw

[E-Stat]

So E-Stat,

what are the differences you percieve between the Toshiba and the GamuT?
Increased stage width, better midrange and lower treble focus. High frequencies don't splatter on the GamuT.


Although distortion is very low, this result is far from "high-end" performance.
If merely frequency response is your sole criteria, that is the case.



The speakers were DIY active three-way speakers with low distorsion at moderate listening levels, ±1 dB frequency response 40 Hz-19 kHz, damping panels in behind speakers effective down ?100 Hz.. Amps were Audio Analogue, Rotel, NAD, parametric EQ of one standing wave (47 Hz).
I appreciate your including your reference system as it provides me a point of reference for your conclusions.

rw

[Geoffcin]

Actually, that's the reason I spent $3k on my GamuT CD-1. It has very pretty blue LEDs.

rw

OMG!! Me too, the only thing I am upset about is I really wish I payed more, that would make me feel better about the dozens of hrs I spent auditioning equipment.

Oh to have mytymites ears, it would have saved me a lot of $$$.

[mtrycraft]

OMG!! Me too, the only thing I am upset about is I really wish I payed more, that would make me feel better about the dozens of hrs I spent auditioning equipment.

Oh to have mytymites ears, it would have saved me a lot of $$$.


But you have no idea how good your ears are. You have not tested it properly. Thinking that it is great, is just wishfull thinking.

[Colin^]

Rotels have them and a lot of high priced or high end gear.

My Nads has the old plain green leds. :o(

I am going to upgrade to a new $5,000 CD player!!

It has pretty blue leds!

[maxg]

Almost 2 full pages on the differences between a $200 and a $2000 Cd player and not one mention of Jitter (unless I missed it).....odd.

I can't even claim to fully understand what Jitter is - only that it has something to do with timing. Many manufacturers seem to go to great lengths to reduce Jitter resulting from both transport (i.e mechanical sources) and DAC's/clocks (electronic sources).

There is lots on info on the Wadia site (for example) on controlling Jitter (http://www.wadia.com/technology/tech_guide.htm#TM) along with a slew of other issues - from filters to ouput levels that will all, probably, have an effect on the sound.

Of course none of this is really my area - my CD player is a $70 DVD. Somehow I just cant justify springing the kind of amounts they seem to want for a Wadia, an Accuphase, a Krell and the like....not when there is vinyl anyway!

And if vinyl is not your bag - how about an SACD or a DVDa player. Some of these are supposed to be very good CD players are well - with the advantage of supporting one of both of the newer formats.

I imagine for $2000 you could get a fine SACD/DVDa or both....

[skeptic]

As is typical with most high end audiophile equipment, the web site you referred to gives partial truths which are intended to lead you to the wrong conclusion without telling you and outright lie. They play on the fears and fantasies of non technical prospective customers to convince them that they have the best solution to a problem which frankly doesn't exist.

How do they do it? How is it possible that your $70 cd player has exactly the same degree of digital jitter as a $2000 high end model which is to say inaudible? How does your $3 flea market wristwatch keep time just as accurately as a $10,000 Rolex? The answer is simple. The jitter is eliminated in the digital circuit. It has to be or the system wouldn't work at all. Here's how its done. ALL mechanical rotating systems no matter how expensive have some degree of speed variation or jitter. Many schemes are used to minimize it from servo mechanisms to using the enormous rotational inertia of a massive carefully balanced platter on a precision journal bearing. But cd transport mechanisms usually don't go to such extremes. The one in your computer hard drive and cd drive only costs a few cents to make and doesn't have any problems. How can that be? The answer is called reclocking. The jittered pulses from the cd after being converted to electrical pulses are fed into buffer registers. One register fills while a parallel register empties. The time available to fill each memory element in the registers is greater than the pulse's width. They must enter within that time span or the system breaks down. That's the accuracy required for the cd transport. When they leave the register they leave at time intervals determined by a quartz oscillator which is far more stable and accurate than any mechanical device could ever be. The warbling of the quartz oscillator is the degree of digital jitter you actually get from the output. That is to say orders of magnitude below the audibility threshold. What happened along the way is unimportant. This is another case of people naively believing that optimizing every last element of equipment inevitably results in overall superior results. It just isn't so. It's not a matter of diminishing returns. It's a matter of no returns. Too bad you practically have to be an engineer to understand when you are being given a snow job these days. Even many of the people who sell it and make it believe in it.

[maxg]

Someone else is going to have to argue on Jitter - I have only got the jist of it and am in no position to argue one way or another. I do seem to remember some article on why jitter was important in audio playback and not in data and think it was something to do with the design of CD audio that doesnt allow for buffering of the signal - the rate the data comes off the disk determining the speed - or something.

As I said - just not my area - I was just expecting someone to chime in with Jitter correction as a reason behind CD player price differences.

as you say: "Too bad you practically have to be an engineer to understand when you are being given a snow job these days"

I am no engineer - so it is very difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff and all of this is very much of academic interest to me....

[mtrycraft]

as you say: "Too bad you practically have to be an engineer to understand when you are being given a snow job these days"

I am no engineer - so it is very difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff and all of this is very much of academic interest to me....

Audio doesn't have the marketplace cornered on this:) Most anything in consumer marketplace is like this.
Marketeers had centrury and more to advance their skills to hook gullible customers :D

[FLZapped]

you have to be FREAKING DEAF!! go listen. some things dont require hirsch-houck labs to verify. this is one of them.

instead of posting here, you should be rereading you consumer reports back issues. that will reinforce your 'BELIEFS'. then you and emptycrafts can sit and nod in agreement at each other.


Hit a nerve, did I? What about YOUR beliefs? As has been pointed out many times to many others: what I listended today, tomorrow, or yesterday cannot establish fact - other than I listened. You believe you've heard differences, wonderful. No doubt you did. Can you factually back it up though?

-Bruce

[hifitommy]

thats what they are, you dont know whether to believe me or not because you dont know me.

no nerves hit. its obvious that CR is where most mrtyites get their info.

factually? actually listen for yourselves. you may be surprised.

[mtrycraft]

thats what they are, you dont know whether to believe me or not because you dont know me.

no nerves hit. its obvious that CR is where most mrtyites get their info.

factually? actually listen for yourselves. you may be surprised.

You under estimate CR. Your loss.
What is there to believe. Better to know. The evidence does not support your beliefs.

[hifitommy]

CR is great. same for stoves and toasters. for audio and automobiles, not so. SOME of that data is useful but for the qualitative differences, they lack experience and interest.

for the average consumer, they are fine, for the enthusiast, they are laughable. i would sooner be at a loss for those laughs. my loss.

[E-Stat]

CR is great. same for stoves and toasters. for audio and automobiles, not so. SOME of that data is useful but for the qualitative differences, they lack experience and interest.

for the average consumer, they are fine, for the enthusiast, they are laughable. i would sooner be at a loss for those laughs. my loss.
You're not alone with those sentiments. I agreed with woodman's similar comments here.

<a href="http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=33276&postcount=18">CR thoughts</a href>


rw

[dean_martin]

I was looking for a new cdp a couple of years ago. Although biased in favor of a single disc player because of supposed superiority, I was looking for a changer for its convenience. I went to a shop that had 2 on display both of which were driven by the same Marantz a/v receiver and played through Klipsch speakers. One was a Parasound 5 disc changer for $650 and the other a Marantz 5 disc changer for $299. The switch box was behind the listening chair and controlled by the salesman. It didn't take long to determine that one of the players definitely played deeper bass. The other player, by comparison, sounded like the compressed crap I've heard on most fm radio stations though not quite as exaggerated. The player with the deeper or more extended bass also was more extended in the higher frequencies. It was more natural and open on top. After identifying and articulating these differences, I then watched as the salesman did the switching and discovered that the Parasound had the more extended bass and treble.

This was a couple of years ago and at the time I just didn't think to ask "Why?" It didn't seem important because the differences were obvious to me. After hearing these differences, there's no way I was going to buy the Marantz. I didn't buy the Parasound either because it was over my budget, but I decided to keep what I had rather than buy the Marantz. I did conclude, however, that the Parasound would have been worth at least 2x as much to me compared to the Marantz. On the other hand, if it takes $2k to beat the $650 Parasound...

[slbenz]

MY experience amounts to plenty as does that of many others here and elsewhere. scientific facts are many times established by observation. my experience is that of observation and i observe that CDPs sound different from one another.

The reasons for that are multitude, just look inside several CDPs and see how differently they are laid out and the different levels of quality of parts and construction there are. Now and again, an inexpensive player will sound exemplary such as my sony ns500v.

the $2k players are made quite well, and will very likely sound better than the veritable $80 RCA so loved by some on this board. personally, if i were planning a $2k expenditure on a player it would be for vinyl. in the meantime, what i have will do.

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html)
Tr,
I am currently borrowing a friend's Sony SCD-777ES SACD player to try out for a few weeks. Here is my experience based on both myself and spouse comparing this $2500 player to our Sony CDP-CX240 cd changer, Panasonic RP-56 DVD player and Pro-Ject 1.2 turntable with stock Sumiko Oyster cartridge. We made sure to change the inputs for each other and not letting the other know what is playing, listening with eyes closed. Both of us were able to discern that the Sony cd changer had the most digitized sound and was the least involving. Next, both the Panasonic and Sony SACD were difficult to reliability discern. This provided the Sony SACD player was in CD mode. If the Sony was in SACD mode, then the sound was again easy to discern vs. a CD being played in the Panasonic or Sony CD240 changer. Now the fun begins, once the turntable was playing, surprisingly
both of us agreed that the turntable sounded more involving with a better capture of true-to-life rendition of sound. I guess we both liked analog the best. As you know, I recently purchased this turntable and got back into vinyl after a 15 year hiatus. I agree with you, if I had $2K to spend, it would be more vinyl. And after finding a local record shop that sells vinyl for 25 cents each, it's a bargain as well. Will let you know the outcome on the Analog Forum once my new turntable mat arrives. Can't wait as you know the stock felt mat is constantly holding a static charge. To summarize the findings in order of liking, 1. Pro-Ject turntable, 2. Sony SCD-777ES in SACD mode, Tied: Sony SCD-777ES in CD mode and Panasonic RP-56, 4. Sony CDP-CX240 cd megachanger. We both noticed that the Sony SCD-777ES played with more bass authority, forward sound stage with more openess to voice and instruments than the cd megachanger. We also ensured all SPLs we matched so as to not be lead by a louder presentation. Not sure if it would be worth spending over $2K on a CD player these days but I would definitely spend some money on a new Universal Player for both SACD and DVD-A discs. Take care.

[dean_martin]

slbenz - congrats on your purchase of a new turntable. I also have the Pro-ject 1.2. It's a nifty little table with what I think is a very good tonearm for its price. My initial impressions when I bought it a couple of years ago was that it didn't sound as warm and involving as the Dual it replaced. I don't know whether I gave the Oyster time to break in (or whether it even needed a break-in period), but I immediately set out to replace it. I found a NOS Parasound cart for cheap and it balanced out the sound adding more weight and bass. Next, I stumbled across the none-felt mat that is supposed to prevent static and enhance performance. Again, this item was relatively cheap - $23. I found that the mat tightened up images. This was most notable with acoustic bass lines on jazz tracks. With the felt mat the bass notes ran into one another. With the none-felt the individual bass notes are more discernable - they actually start and stop instead of running into each other. The difference isn't night and day, but it is there.

My only recommended change for the table is cosmetic. I think it would look more substantial if the dust cover was a smokey charcoal gray. IMO, you just can't beat classic rock (the Stones) and jazz on vinyl. I have a couple of jazz titles on both cd and vinyl. Some sax passages on cd can drive me out of the room. The same passages on vinyl are just smooth. Enjoy! - Tim

[hifitommy]

all this response, and and i was just going to tell mtry that the new catalog with the kings new clothes arrived. that is the new absolute sound (tas). it is really fun deluding myself that there are better CDPs than the $80 rca.

all the usual goons there, hp, RH, REG (you know, the ucla math professor). that and the acoulstic sounds catalog thats onyl half as thick as tas.

as for where my next hifi dollars are going, i am getting tempted towards an ortofon cartridge in the Kontrapunkt series. i have been privy to the jubilee and Kb which my friend bought after hearing my mc200. and last night i switched from a krell mc to the mc200 and the music quality went up about 4 or 5 notches.

orchestral bass drum went from a convincing and satisfying booommmm to a more convincing and satisfying conveyance of the drum head vibrating. instruments became more individually unique and the experience convinced me that the orto would remain in the system for a long while and my budget would be investigated.

this all occurred while listening on the:http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html) system
using the pioneer tt because of the interchangeable headshell. and oh yeah, i switched from the arc pr to my soundcraftsmen 2215 pre/eq (eq not used) and this runs through the b+k surround processor (transparent as hell and only used for its switching ability, surround visa dynaquad). music-leroy andersons fiddle faddle by maurice abravanel on vanguard. this is a reference disc. i paid $2 at arons in hollywood for it.

just to shoot the shirt out of the contention that the bean counters are getting rich on me (holy shirt!), i play my CDs on a sony ns500v that i paid $169 delivered on the recommendation of tas (the unit, not the price, i was of the belief that i would have to pay $300 and would have willingly after reading their review) and am enjoying sacd and perhaps more importantly, my rbcds more than ever on it (go figure).

well, gee, this was fun, now to the tas. c u later.

[RGA]

Someone else is going to have to argue on Jitter - I have only got the jist of it and am in no position to argue one way or another. I do seem to remember some article on why jitter was important in audio playback and not in data and think it was something to do with the design of CD audio that doesnt allow for buffering of the signal - the rate the data comes off the disk determining the speed - or something.

As I said - just not my area - I was just expecting someone to chime in with Jitter correction as a reason behind CD player price differences.

as you say: "Too bad you practically have to be an engineer to understand when you are being given a snow job these days"

I am no engineer - so it is very difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff and all of this is very much of academic interest to me....'

There are some notable engineers that may wish to disagree - not all scientists nor engineers agree which is why one gets a second opinion - and believe it or not the majority rules approach does not make it right.

Check out some articles by Martin Colloms on many of these issues - he is one of the world's formost experts in the field with some impressive educational credentials for a viewpoint no doubt which is different from Skeptic's view. http://www.colloms.com/

[skeptic]

I couldn't seem to get to his article on jitter in cd players but I read the article he wrote for Stereophile Magazine on negative feedback.
http://www.stereophile.com//reference/70/index.html
At first he seems like an intelligent well trained engineer. He wrote;

"By and large, negative feedback works. It has made a vast variety of audio products possible and manufacturable. It is hard to conceive of the world of audio engineering without Harold Black's negative feedback."

But then he goes off the deep end into what is mostly religion and very little science. He jumps to conclusions, makes unjustifiable assumptions, and seems to come up with a parade of off the wall ideas. All of his arguements are based on subjective reactions and are voiced in purely subjective terms. He basically rejects the notion that you can measure what you hear and jumps right off the cliff of rationality with the usual high end claptrap that the golden eared audiophile knows whats best and nobody will ever be able to measure why. Small wonder he writes for consumer publications specifically designed to cater to this point of view. He could be one of their gurus. Sorry, I'm not jumping off that cliff with him. IMO, this guy is a wacko with a loose screw in his head.

As for negative feedback, as I have said before, a very difficult concept to impliment correctly but if all you ever listen to are those which don't you could easily jump to the wrong conclusion just as you would if all you heard were pianos out of tune and decided that all pianos are unmusical.

[maxg]

We leap in this forum from one topic I dont understand to another with abandon these days. Negative feedback is yet another (in a growing list). I have seen both sides wax lyrical on this one (as to whether it is a good thing or not) and the only conclusion I have come to so far is that in PP pentode tube amps (like mine - well ultra-linear but lets not split hairs) it is generally good whilst in low power SET amps it is generally bad - according to the prevailing weight of opinion anyway.

There are, it seems, as ever, exceptions to even this generalization.

Yet another example of why I do all my judging by ear. Yes I may be fooled by the sound, but I am even easier to fool with flawed science.

[skeptic]

"Yes I may be fooled by the sound, but I am even easier to fool with flawed science."

How unfortunate and expensive for you. Sadly, that is the case for most audiophiles without any technical understanding behind their purchase of very technical equipment. Your bank account is fertile ground ripe for the pickin'. And boy can they ever pick.

[maxg]

"Yes I may be fooled by the sound, but I am even easier to fool with flawed science."

How unfortunate and expensive for you. Sadly, that is the case for most audiophiles without any technical understanding behind their purchase of very technical equipment. Your bank account is fertile ground ripe for the pickin'. And boy can they ever pick.

Just consider the following:

1. You have no idea how good, or otherwise, my system sounds (especially to me).
2. You have no idea how much I spent on it to get there.

It is not beyond the bounds of reason for me to have spent less than even you have - and have ended up with better sound as a result.

Unless we have both experienced the other's system, and maybe even reached agreement, it might be better to try to look me in the eye rather than at my bald pach.

[skeptic]

"I have come to so far is that in PP pentode tube amps (like mine - well ultra-linear but lets not split hairs) it is generally good whilst in low power SET amps it is generally bad - according to the prevailing weight of opinion anyway."

Every technology on the market has its proponents including the SET low power triode amplifiers. As for the cost of beam power pentode amplifiers, they were once the mainstay of the high end of the industry and relatively inexpensive to build. Had vacuum tube technology not become extinct and then re-emerged as a niche market, they would still be very inexpensive. Old Dynaco Mark III s can still perform very well and many new ideas have been applied to improve on their fine performance for their day. Some are in the form of tweaks such as replacement of capacitors and upgrades to better power supplies, some come in the form of remanufacture such as those offered by the apparantly now defunct Sound Valves of Ohio, and some are knockoffs pretending to be someting altogether new. But unless you bought them a long time ago originally yourself, most of today's recently manufactured vacuum tube amplifiers are in the category of expensive because the parts necessary to build them such as multisection high voltage electrolytic capacitors for the power supply stages, high voltage transformers for powers supplies to bias vacuum tubes, and output transformers are expensive themselves because of limited production for the niche market. There may be exceptions such as those manufactured in China, or you might have gotten one used or in some special "deal." So you are right, I don't know what you paid, what you got, or how your system sounds. BTW, practically all of the most successful vacuum tube amplifiers built during the heyday of that technology used negative feedback extensively. At that time most amplifier designers were actually electrical engineers, not tinkerers.

[FLZapped]

Ah, your usual dodge from my question. Let's try again. What do you do with your audio equipment if not to hear it? Watch the LCD display ? Just like to push buttons?

rw

You can't seem to get it through your head that what I listen to does not establish any fact regarding the topic of this thread. Or any other thread on audibility of X, Y, or Z......

-Bruce

[E-Stat]

You can't seem to get it through your head that what I listen to does not establish any fact regarding the topic of this thread. Or any other thread on audibility of X, Y, or Z......
I guess you have forgotten your original question.

<i><b>Heard how?</i></b>

What kind of an answer did you expect? I heard a spec sheet?

rw

[nightflier]

[QUOTE=gypsyhick]...I can't buy one. I'm just curious and don't - at the moment - have time to listen to these expensive CD player... [QUOTE]

I also didn't have the money for an expensive player, so I went and compared the less expensive ones: Sony, Philips, Samsung, Onkyo, a couple of units I borrowed from friends (including an Ah!NjoeTjoeb!), and a few other usual suspects. We also didn't have expensive testing equipment either (my trusty RadioShack dB meter, was about it). So here are some of the non-scientific steps I took:

- I'm a big believer in the idea that bigger/heavier is better, so I weighed each player I tested.
- I also don't care for lots of plastic parts, wobbly gears, and rubber doohickies, so that was a factor, too.
- I've always believed that mechanical devices will fail some day, so the way in which the disk tray openened and closed, the feel of the buttons and the quality of the remote were factors too.
- When possible, I opened each unit and took a peak inside. Checked out the size of the capacitors, whether any patch jobs were performed on the circuit boards, and considered the layout.
- I also played CD's with the volume muted to see how much noise the player made on it's own.
- And then I played some of my favorite CD's and did the usual tests, including DB....

In the end, Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic were out and I bought a second-hand CD player from Cambridge Audio. I don't recommend doing this, but I bought this from a friend who I could trust. That said, Cambridge Audio definitely makes some excellent & affordable audio equipment (I now also have an Azur 540A), albeit not the least expensive choice. In short, I put a lot of stock in the construction of the player, something people often overlook in favor of blue LED's, flashy names, chrone finish, unrealistic specs, etc.

P.S. I also use the inexpensive / common-sense tweaks that people have suggested online that have made a noticeable difference: cleaning the interconnects and tightening the grip on the cables, weighing down the player a bit to stabilize it, keeping things clean, and using a good power source. None of these raised the cost, but I would guess the player compares to a much more expensive model, now.

[mtrycraft]

I was looking for a new cdp a couple of years ago. Although biased in favor of a single disc player because of supposed superiority, I was looking for a changer for its convenience. I went to a shop that had 2 on display both of which were driven by the same Marantz a/v receiver and played through Klipsch speakers. One was a Parasound 5 disc changer for $650 and the other a Marantz 5 disc changer for $299. The switch box was behind the listening chair and controlled by the salesman. It didn't take long to determine that one of the players definitely played deeper bass. The other player, by comparison, sounded like the compressed crap I've heard on most fm radio stations though not quite as exaggerated. The player with the deeper or more extended bass also was more extended in the higher frequencies. It was more natural and open on top. After identifying and articulating these differences, I then watched as the salesman did the switching and discovered that the Parasound had the more extended bass and treble.

This was a couple of years ago and at the time I just didn't think to ask "Why?" It didn't seem important because the differences were obvious to me. After hearing these differences, there's no way I was going to buy the Marantz. I didn't buy the Parasound either because it was over my budget, but I decided to keep what I had rather than buy the Marantz. I did conclude, however, that the Parasound would have been worth at least 2x as much to me compared to the Marantz. On the other hand, if it takes $2k to beat the $650 Parasound...

Well, it is difficult to say how good that setup was. After all, the salesman has an interest in selling higher priced gear.
At the minimum, a test disc should have been used to make sure they were both outputting the same level as that is the first you will notice but causing not a volume recognition but other differences.

Also, you have no idea how it was set up, which CD was routed which way. Any cheating?
No, those two should sound the same if set up correctly.

[Poss]

As is typical with most high end audiophile equipment, the web site you referred to gives partial truths which are intended to lead you to the wrong conclusion without telling you and outright lie. They play on the fears and fantasies of non technical prospective customers to convince them that they have the best solution to a problem which frankly doesn't exist.

Sorry... I snipped all the rest. It is true but it shows you don't really understand this jitter thing one bit (pun intended). What you're talking about is "interface" jitter. Its level has to be indeed quite high to affect sound quality. Actually its effect is usually the DAC losing the lock on the signal so the effect is quite audible (a blank, pause or similar).

D/A conversion also suffers from "conversion" jitter which is a totally different animal altogether. If the D/A's clock wanders (and it does) the resulting reconstructed sinewave (your analogue signal or more exactly what will become your analogue signal after dithering) will stray from the original sampled one. Not good. Also not really measurable in conventional "distorsion" terms (or better said in the manufacturer's supplied specs) but measurable in absolute distorsion.

Conversion jitter is a big problem and it is measurable too. I did go once in this board over the entire process and its intricacies (maybe 3 years back)... I don't feel like doing it again, it takes time that I don't really have. Sorry.

Regards.

And Peace!

[Beckman]

Some interesting facts:

If you line up all the bumps and flat spaces on a cd they would be 3.5 miles long.

The cd player must gradualy decrease the rotaional velocity as the laser moves from the inside to the outside.

CD players have error correction circuits built in, so when a misread occurs some fuzz could come out during playback.

Because the laser may misread a bump, there need to be error-correcting codes to handle single-bit errors. To solve this problem, extra data bits are added that allow the drive to detect single-bit errors and correct them.

This information can all be found on

howstuffworks.com

I have a $400 Cambridge Audio cdp. I once compared the sound of my 10 year old portable toshiba cd player to that of my $400 cd player using headphones. I listened to a short portion of Dark Side of the Moon. I could hear no difference between the two. One shocking difference was that my $400 cdp played cd's that other players wouldn't play because of scratches. So I think spending a LITTLE extra money might be beneficial in some cases. I wouldn't expect a noticable increase in sound quality as price increase though. If I knew then what I know now I would have saved up a little more money and bought a DVD-audio/SACD/cd player. As for the best $2000 cd player, go out and by a $100 DVD player and send the extra $1900 to Africa to feed starving children. You will sleep better at night.

[DMK]

Some interesting facts:

If you line up all the bumps and flat spaces on a cd they would be 3.5 miles long.

The cd player must gradualy decrease the rotaional velocity as the laser moves from the inside to the outside.

CD players have error correction circuits built in, so when a misread occurs some fuzz could come out during playback.

Because the laser may misread a bump, there need to be error-correcting codes to handle single-bit errors. To solve this problem, extra data bits are added that allow the drive to detect single-bit errors and correct them.

This information can all be found on

howstuffworks.com

I have a $400 Cambridge Audio cdp. I once compared the sound of my 10 year old portable toshiba cd player to that of my $400 cd player using headphones. I listened to a short portion of Dark Side of the Moon. I could hear no difference between the two. One shocking difference was that my $400 cdp played cd's that other players wouldn't play because of scratches. So I think spending a LITTLE extra money might be beneficial in some cases. I wouldn't expect a noticable increase in sound quality as price increase though. If I knew then what I know now I would have saved up a little more money and bought a DVD-audio/SACD/cd player. As for the best $2000 cd player, go out and by a $100 DVD player and send the extra $1900 to Africa to feed starving children. You will sleep better at night.

The whole concept of sonic differences in CDP's bothers me. The reason is that many years ago I went through the blind testing routine - and sold my Theta separates, bought a cheap CDP and spent the diff on vinyl! :)

However, since that time (with some baiting) I did some minor testing through the headphone jacks of two players I had on hand, the Sony XA20-ES (my current reference) and a Pioneer PDR-509 recorder. Through the headphone jacks, there were sonic differences. Could be the jacks, I suppose. The Sony is one I like because it navigates any CD and that is the biggest sonic difference I've heard! Most players I've experienced go nuts trying to play a lot of my CD's but the Sony sails through.

Further, I've recently heard some digital gear that sounds quite different, notably the Audio Note Dac 2.1 with no digital filters or oversampling. This piece sounds not only different than the Sony, but better. My guess is that is measures like a piece of dog turd as a result. But the difference thing bothers me because while the transport either reads a CD or doesn't, the analog section of the DAC should reveal differences between players, in my mind. On sighted listening, some do, some don't. I don't care to try blind testing again, however.

Did you us the headphone jack on your players or a headphone jack on your preamp?

[woodman]

... go out and by a $100 DVD player and send the extra $1900 to Africa to feed starving children. You will sleep better at night.

Amen. That's one of the BEST bits of advice I've ever seen here at A-R in all of the years I've been coming here!

[Poss]

Tr,
Will let you know the outcome on the Analog Forum once my new turntable mat arrives. Can't wait as you know the stock felt mat is constantly holding a static charge.

Hi Slbenz.
You know, cork mats used for construction floor soundproofing make excellent TT mats. The stuff sells at Home Depot for just a few bucks a sheet. All you have to do is cut it nicely round and drill a .281" hole in the center (15 minutes worth of work). Use a record clamp to keep everything nicely flat (the plastic Clearaudio works quite well) and you'll be amazed at the difference it makes.
One word of caution though. This cork sheet is about 1/8" thick so you may need to readjust the arm height a little.
The cork mat provides both better "traction" and superior static dissipation, not to mention excellent vibration damping/ noise absorption.

Peace!

[Beckman]

The whole concept of sonic differences in CDP's bothers me. The reason is that many years ago I went through the blind testing routine - and sold my Theta separates, bought a cheap CDP and spent the diff on vinyl! :)

However, since that time (with some baiting) I did some minor testing through the headphone jacks of two players I had on hand, the Sony XA20-ES (my current reference) and a Pioneer PDR-509 recorder. Through the headphone jacks, there were sonic differences. Could be the jacks, I suppose. The Sony is one I like because it navigates any CD and that is the biggest sonic difference I've heard! Most players I've experienced go nuts trying to play a lot of my CD's but the Sony sails through.

Further, I've recently heard some digital gear that sounds quite different, notably the Audio Note Dac 2.1 with no digital filters or oversampling. This piece sounds not only different than the Sony, but better. My guess is that is measures like a piece of dog turd as a result. But the difference thing bothers me because while the transport either reads a CD or doesn't, the analog section of the DAC should reveal differences between players, in my mind. On sighted listening, some do, some don't. I don't care to try blind testing again, however.

Did you us the headphone jack on your players or a headphone jack on your preamp?

I used a headphone jack on my integrated amplifier (Myryad Z140). When I did the comparison I listened for obvious changes in the detail, and soundstage, not changes. in tone. So my comparison was flawed, I think idealy one would A+B switch between two cdp's plugged into the same amplifier. I don't plan on buying anything other than speakers to improve the sound quality of my system in the future (or maybe an equalizer and a SPL meter).

[Poss]

I used a headphone jack on my integrated amplifier (Myryad Z140). When I did the comparison I listened for obvious changes in the detail, and soundstage, not changes. in tone. So my comparison was flawed, I think idealy one would A+B switch between two cdp's plugged into the same amplifier. I don't plan on buying anything other than speakers to improve the sound quality of my system in the future (or maybe an equalizer and a SPL meter).
Level of detail and the way complicated, busy musical passages are handled is what usually sets CD players appart. Technical specs usually don't say much about how or if a player will run out of steam while trying to negociate a sudden raise in sound level with added instruments on the table. That's why sometimes simply playing "regular" pop music cannot really tell two units appart (especially true with the current crop of artists).

Beethoven's symphonies however (and classical music in general) tend to sepparate players better (my favourite being of course the 9th... for testing that is, the one that's closer to my heart is the 7th).

I did once ABX a bunch of CD players and I had surprisingly little trouble picking the one that I actually ended buying (yes the levels were matched closely and yes I used an ABX device). The differences were not in tonality but in dynamics and details. You know, the Devil is in the details (or the lack thereoff). It would be nice if my ears wouls agree with my wallet though... :-)

Finally, there are DSPs on the market (but I don't have any experience with them at all) that will optimize the system response according to your listening position and room acoustics. A simple EQ won't cut the mustard IMHO.

Peace!

[DMK]

I used a headphone jack on my integrated amplifier (Myryad Z140). When I did the comparison I listened for obvious changes in the detail, and soundstage, not changes. in tone. So my comparison was flawed, I think idealy one would A+B switch between two cdp's plugged into the same amplifier. I don't plan on buying anything other than speakers to improve the sound quality of my system in the future (or maybe an equalizer and a SPL meter).

I should have used the amp also - at least as a check! But it matters not as I still own the same two CDP's I listed. I found that the minute differences weren't worth fretting over.

Skeptic has convinced me to try equalization in my system (he IS persistent!) and I may try surround at some point. Aside from that, my system is set.

[Beckman]

Finally, there are DSPs on the market (but I don't have any experience with them at all) that will optimize the system response according to your listening position and room acoustics. A simple EQ won't cut the mustard IMHO.

Peace!

A simple eq might not cut the mustard, but what about a 1/3 ocatve eq. A DSP essential does the same thing as an eq.