$1200 vs $200 cd players

[theaudiohobby]

RGA,

Please try to write more concisely, these tedious long posts are no good. You never seem to give up on any viewpoint no matter how discredited it is sounding like a broken record a lot of the time . It was just a few weeks ago that some of the guys took you to task on subwoofers and yet I still read comments like 'one-note bass from subwoofers' in your posts betraying dogmatic ignorance on the subject. I will suggest that you go back and listen to a well integrated subwoofer/bookshelf speaker combo before you offer any more comments on this topic. A good subwoofer will transform not just the bass but the lower midrange of many bookshelf speakers that have little (or rolled off) output below < 50Hz increasing perceived midrange transparency. A well integrated AN -K/subwoofer will sound more agile than the AN-E though it may still fall short in the area Max SPL depending on preferred integration technique.

No amount of superlatives you quote about the AN digital products can really shift the fundamentals, they are not transparent and the objective measurements clearly show that. Transperency and good sounding are not synonymous terms and I said that they are not transparent and none of the quotes that you have provided offers anything more than subjective preference for the DAC which is okay in itself but is an insufficient basis upon which to build an argument about the transparency of any component.

You talk about dark, bright and transparency in the same breath, a component may be dark or bright and not be transparent ( faithful to the source signal) more often thy are neutral. Go back and go and read Martin Colloms assessment of the DAC 5, it was not transparent, read the other reviews of the lesser DACs that have accompanying measurements, absolutely none of them refers to any of the AN DACs as transparent, the universal opinion is that they are colored, no bad thing, since a lot of folks including reviewers love them that way, so the package obviously works, but that doesn't make them transparent.

[musicoverall]

Best to say simply, as per Mr Colloms, that the DAC sounded like music rather than "digital". I'd trade that for transparency any day! I'm not in this hobby to listen to measurements and what the objectivists believe is accurate, particularly if one chooses, say, a cheap plastic CD player over the Audio Note due to its measurements. It appears that RGA is in the same boat. It's the old argument of whether to listen to a believeable reproduction of actual instruments or a very much NOT believable reproduction of a processed signal.

Or...perhaps what RGA meant is that the Audio Note portrays a transparent reproduction of live music rather than this processed signal? Perhaps he can expound on the matter.

[theaudiohobby]

Best to say simply, as per Mr Colloms, that the DAC sounded like music rather than "digital". I'd trade that for transparency any day! I'm not in this hobby to listen to measurements and what the objectivists believe is accurate, particularly if one chooses, say, a cheap plastic CD player over the Audio Note due to its measurements. It appears that RGA is in the same boat. It's the old argument of whether to listen to a believeable reproduction of actual instruments or a very much NOT believable reproduction of a processed signal.
.

An old cliche, as per my reply to RGA, read Martin Collums (not my favoured reviewer by any means) et al comments about the Naim CDS3 that cost less than half of the AN DAC 5, measures much better, is more transparent, does not sound digital (i.e. does not ring) and sounds like music. It is a pity that most of the folks who claim that they only want to listen to the music, measurements be damned are actually the most gullible and they are just too gullible to see it , pun intended. A digital component does not have to measure atrociously to sound good and vice versa. I restricted my comments to Naims and the AN DAC in order to directly address RGA comments and the last time I listened to my rig, it was giving a believable reproduction of actual instruments if that was what was captured on the recording. As Jim Austin put it 'If it is not in the recording, where is it? Comments like 'believeable reproduction of actual instruments vs. believable reproduction of a processed signal' have absolutely no merit when analysed very closely because if they did, the quality of a recording will cease to be an issue and arguments about analog/digital recordings etc would have very little merit.

[kexodusc]

Oh, god, I hate it when people use "musical" as an adjective to describe components...it so much easier to say "sounds better", than "sounds musical".

Without using other vague references, could someone explain to me what "sounds like music" vs. "sounds digital" means so I understand the message being conveyed here.

[theaudiohobby]

Without using other vague references, could someone explain to me what "sounds like music" vs. "sounds digital" means so I understand the message being conveyed here.

'sound musical' is a pet hate of mine, I notice it is always used to justify a personal preference. Digital sounding to the best of my knowledge means that the digital component and does not suffer from ringing and jitter in any audibly perceptible degree.

[Feanor]

'sounds musical' is a pet hate of mine, I notice it is always used to justify a personal preference...

"Musical" is a contemptable adjective when applied to hifi components.

[theaudiohobby]

hi, i am new to 2 ch audio.

i have borrowed a $1200 arcam cd82 and comparing it to a $200 sony dvd/cd player. switching between audioquest & highwire (brand) digital coax into my sony es2000 amp. speakers are proac tablettes. i cant hear a major difference playing cd's....is it the amp? music style? or is the difference not that big? i'm just trying to justify the purchase of the cd players....are the differences in equipment/sound mainly personal preference? what should i be looking for to jusitfy the cost?
i listen to jazz and electronic music.

thanks

Compare the arcam to the Sony through the RCA outputs and see which one you prefer, I cannot see the Sony sounding better than Arcam through the analog (RCA outputs) but stranger things have happened. However a good test is to see if the Sony sounds better through the digital outputs than the Arcam through the RCA outputs. You should only keep it if it is better than the Sony under both circumstances. Pay attention to the high frequencies and the instrument separation.

[jfish]

Compare the arcam to the Sony through the RCA outputs and see which one you prefer, I cannot see the Sony sounding better than Arcam through the analog (RCA outputs) but stranger things have happened. However a good test is to see if the Sony sounds better through the digital outputs than the Arcam through the RCA outputs. You should only keep it if it is better than the Sony under both circumstances. Pay attention to the high frequencies and the instrument separation.

only slightly differnet, i think my sony es digital amp is so "sterile" sounding, any change in imaging is lost....the amp makes everything really clear and sharp, nothing warm or tube-like about it....still sounds good w/ the small proacs & sub. i sent the cd player back.....i was expecting the sky to open up and golden notes for shoot frrom the speakers..

[musicoverall]

. A digital component does not have to measure atrociously to sound good and vice versa. Comments like 'believeable reproduction of actual instruments vs. believable reproduction of a processed signal' have absolutely no merit when analysed very closely because if they did, the quality of a recording will cease to be an issue and arguments about analog/digital recordings etc would have very little merit.

Yes, and also a digital component doesn't have to measure well to sound good. And I disagree that my comment you quoted has no merit. You're talking about two separate issues as though they were the same. They aren't.

[musicoverall]

"Musical" is a contemptable adjective when applied to hifi components.

It's perhaps a poor term but I know what it means. If a component sounds "musical", it makes the signal coming through the speaker sound like music rather than a bunch of 1's and 0's. I use it to refer to the opposite of sounding digital... harsh, brittle, sterile, etc. Live music doesn't sound like that and hence, an audio product that also doesn't is "musical". I agree there should be a better term, though.

[theaudiohobby]

Yes, and also a digital component doesn't have to measure well to sound good.

I said that in my post..

And I disagree that my comment you quoted has no merit. You're talking about two separate issues as though they were the same. They aren't.

what are the two separate issues?

[theaudiohobby]

...i was expecting the sky to open up and golden notes to shoot from the speakers..

[Feanor]

It's perhaps a poor term but I know what it means. ....

That's the problem. If it's "not harsh, brittle, sterile", then say that. Or say it's "sweet, clear, grain-free". Maybe you can also say, "it accurately reproduces instrument timbres and conveys spatial information convincingly".

"Musical" is a subjective, vague, and mealy-mouthed. Also, it is term often used by vinyl addicts and tube-heads to describe the benign -- but not uncertain -- filtering and distortion that these provide.

[kexodusc]

That's the problem. If it's "not harsh, brittle, sterile", then say that. Or say it's "sweet, clear, grain-free". Maybe you can also say, "it accurately reproduces instrument timbres and conveys spatial information convincingly".

"Musical" is a subjective, vague, and mealy-mouthed. Also, it is term often used by vinyl addicts and tube-heads to describe the benign -- but not uncertain -- filtering and distortion that these provide.

I'm with Feanor on this one..."musical" is often used by brand-fanboys and vinyl addicts to justify why they like what they have...

I'm gonna start using phrases like "that sounds too much like analog and not music"...meaning congested, lacking spatial detail, low on dynamics, and full of distortion and unwanted noise artifacts...
I'd piss off half the people at ar.com pretty quick I ever do...

[theaudiohobby]

I'm with Feanor on this one..."musical" is often used by brand-fanboys and vinyl addicts to justify why they like what they have...

ya

[SRO]

Yeah, I guess it is a bit vague. However, is this not the goal of a good audio system? To play music? Hence, "musical". I do think the recording has to be musical, or it does not matter what you play it back on.

I can't really comment on the tubes, as I don't really have great experience with them. But I would agree in general with the vinyl guys. I have many recordings on both vinyl and cd ( as well as some SACD and DVD-A ), and in general I like the vinyl better. On newer recording, say 90's and newer, it's pretty close. I would say I prefer records maybe 60% to 40%. Older recordings are not even close. Records, hands down. This does not include the newest remasters.I refuse to pay for another copy of Back in Black, Kind of Blue, etc. for perhaps a marginal improvement.

Before I get lumped in with the anti-digital crowd, SACD and DVD-A is a whole new ball game. Overall, I really enjoy the new formats. With very few exceptions, I have been blown away by the new formats. I plan to make the move to multi-channel soon, and this should increase my enjoyment even more. My main complaints are lack of software, and a couple of my DVD-A's are smarter than I am. I can't seem to find the 2 channel mix. Hence, the move to multi-channel.

[theaudiohobby]

Yeah, I guess it is a bit vague. However, is this not the goal of a good audio system? To play music? Hence, "musical". I do think the recording has to be musical, or it does not matter what you play it back on.

What do the other audio systems play, baseball?

[SRO]

What do the other audio systems play, baseball?

Some of the systems I've heard would probably do a better job at baseball. Have you ever heard music at a Circuit City?

[theaudiohobby]

Some of the systems I've heard would probably do a better job at baseball. Have you ever heard music at a Circuit City?

I assure that a vinyl rig will fare worse than CD at circuit city, no TLC to make it shine

[SRO]

I assure that a vinyl rig will fare worse than CD at circuit city, no TLC to make it shine

Are you saying a turntable that would be sold at CC will lose to a CD? If so, I agree completely. Vinyl is a total pain in the a** to sound it's best. Most will not go through what it takes for this. It is much easier and convenient to just drop a disc in a player and go. It's what I do 95% of the time, and I generally prefer records. Vinyl REQUIRES TLC, CD's do not.

One reason I still have a turntable is that I can buy 5 or 6 records for the price 1 CD. 3 to 4 if I compared to a used CD.

[musicoverall]

That's the problem. If it's "not harsh, brittle, sterile", then say that. Or say it's "sweet, clear, grain-free". Maybe you can also say, "it accurately reproduces instrument timbres and conveys spatial information convincingly".

"Musical" is a subjective, vague, and mealy-mouthed. Also, it is term often used by vinyl addicts and tube-heads to describe the benign -- but not uncertain -- filtering and distortion that these provide.

Or you could say "musical" or "not musical" sounding. Just about everything on this board is subjective, at least when it comes to sound. Why are you balking at a term? When "vinyl addicts and tube-heads" use musical to describe what they hear, what's the problem? It means it sounds like music. What's vague or mealy-mouthed about that?

[musicoverall]

I'm with Feanor on this one..."musical" is often used by brand-fanboys and vinyl addicts to justify why they like what they have...

I'm gonna start using phrases like "that sounds too much like analog and not music"...meaning congested, lacking spatial detail, low on dynamics, and full of distortion and unwanted noise artifacts...
I'd piss off half the people at ar.com pretty quick I ever do...

Nah, we wouldn't get pissed off - we'd give you 5 paragraphs about record care!
And I like what I have. So does that place me into an elite group that's allowed to use the term "musical" without having to justify it?

[DMK]

Nah, we wouldn't get pissed off - we'd give you 5 paragraphs about record care!

Or we might do neither. We might instead scratch our heads in consternation and ask if he's ever heard an analog master tape.

It would be nice indeed if the media we buy sounded "too much like analog".

[Garrardman]

I have to say that i disagree and i think that "musicality" can be a valid term (although it's certianly not measurable or quantifiable!!)

I can think of many occasions where i have been sat in front of speakers listening to something and thinking that the bass i am listening to is very good, the midrange nice and open and the treble very clear and not harsh. So, then, why do i find myself not liking the overall sound? It seems more and more common to find speakers (especially) that are very sterile and lacking in "emotion", whilst seeming to do nothing wrong (i would suspect they would also measure well). This is where i think the term musicality can be used.

Going back to the original topic of this thread, and the difference between £200 and £1200 CD players, it's hardly surprising that there isn't much difference - after all, both players only have to turn a stream of 1's and 0's back into an analogue signal!

A £200 and a £1200 turntable, however - now that's a whole different ball game!!

Adam.

[theaudiohobby]

Going back to the original topic of this thread, and the difference between £200 and £1200 CD players, it's hardly surprising that there isn't much difference - after all, both players only have to turn a stream of 1's and 0's back into an analogue signal!

A £200 and a £1200 turntable, however - now that's a whole different ball game!!

Adam.

This is so naive