$1200 vs $200 cd players

[kexodusc]

Actually I have heard master tapes, and I believe analog to be just as good as digital...and vice-versa. I do own a turntable and frequently enjoy some classic records.
I can't stress enough that it isn't the digital format that's flawed, it's the corner cutting by manufacturers, IMO.

For every bad piece of digital gear, there's some horrible analog stuff out there too...as bad as a $60 cd player might sound, I'd be just as frightened of a $60 turntable. I try not to get involved in the digital vs. analog debate because I like both and I find it stupid. So much for that.

With regards to $200 vs $1200 CD players, I do find that the sound improvements are rather subtle, but the build quality, and features available improve substantially. This isn't a bad thing, after all, a CD player is a toy, have fun with it. Plus, desite my "anti-elitist" talk, I do have a certain sense of satisfaction in owning a nice Arcam player, guess I'm guilty too...

[DMK]

I can't stress enough that it isn't the digital format that's flawed, it's the corner cutting by manufacturers,

I think that's a valid opinion, mostly because I share it myself! As much as it might seem otherwise and as much as I might fail at this, I try not to blame the digital medium. Instead of saying that analog (vinyl) is better than digital, I make the subtle distinction of saying that LP's sound better than CD's. That's only because, as a collector and owner of several thousand pieces of both types of discs, the vinyl sounds superior the vast, vast majority of the time... for whatever that's worth.

It's particularly disquieting when I attend a live show that is being recorded and then buy the CD and find such obvious sonic anomalies that make the CD almost unlistenable. If the live show had sounded that bad, I would have remembered it as it would have been physically painful. This in a small jazz club that is close in dimensions to my own listening room. Still, I do believe it's the recording rather than the medium.

Unlike you, I only occasionally find the poorly recorded LP or, at least, an LP that sounds as bad as most CD's. I do sometimes buy an LP that has so much noise due to poor care but that's avoidable. As much as the digital crowds bark otherwise, a well cared for LP doesn't exhibit the noise problems. I have LP's from the 1950's that sound very quiet, not to mention incredibly dynamic.

I'll post it again for those who feel CD's sound better than vinyl - try some 45 RPM LP's. Absolutely stunning and better than any SACD I've ever heard. As you stated about digital, the analog medium also is not the problem.

'Nuff said on the tired old debate. It is what it is but it also pales in comparison to the fact that I own nearly as many CD's as I do LP's and I play them almost as often and I love them almost as much. To find let alone afford each and every Bill Evans LP on Riverside would be daunting but voila! A couple hundred bucks and I can own every note on CD! How cool is THAT???

Oh, shoot! The original post! I split the difference between $200 and $1200 and bought a $700 CDP. It's a Sony XA20-ES and if you want to talk about sonic differences between players, try this: It will track just about any CD regardless of the condition. I've never encountered a player except the Sony that will navigate a few of the defective CD's I own. Beyond that, I don't hear many differences among CDP's that measure similarly. I used to own Theta and I've heard many of the newer players such as Gamut, Meridian, Simaudio, etc. For the poster that disagreed with a comment regarding naivete, I'm anything but inexperienced in this, having done blind testing as well as sighted A/B's. If diffs are there, they are so subtle that they're difficult if not impossible for me to make out, once you check your biases at the door. Plus, as someone who has searched far and wide for ANYTHING to make CD's sound like music, I've tried every tweak as well as practically every CDP. Perhaps my own biases are at work! Your mileage may vary. But as you said, sonic diffs aren't everything - there's also pride of ownership, build quality, etc. This Sony is built like a tank! Looks like your basic cheapo, though!

[theaudiohobby]

Oh, shoot! The original post! I split the difference between $200 and $1200 and bought a $700 CDP. It's a Sony XA20-ES and if you want to talk about sonic differences between players, try this: It will track just about any CD regardless of the condition. I've never encountered a player except the Sony that will navigate a few of the defective CD's I own. Beyond that, I don't hear many differences among CDP's that measure similarly.

The issue here is that quite a few of the top CDPs measure differently, so where does leave your original statement, to get an idea of what I am saying get the measurements of the Sony SCD1, Naim CDX2 and the Moon Eclipse they measure differently and sound different as a consequence. On the corollary, If two turntables measure the same, guess what, they will sound the same, no prizes there, one of my biggest beefs with Stereophile, that they do not measure turntables, which leaves turntables reviews as guilty of the largest amount of hyperbole in the industry. If you can, get hold of the Hi-fi World where they measured a number of catridges, it was quite interesting, certainly shattered a lot of myths. I gathered that when a blind test was carried out between MC and MM catridges that MM catridges carried the day to consternation of many MC fans who under controlled conditions voted MM instead MC. Recently a 20 year old blind test was published by Hi-fi News ,where LP analog output was recorded directly to CD and played back under controlled test conditions, guess what the sworn audio enthusiasts could not distinguish between the CD and the vinyl rig, so much for vinyl sonic superiority, even way back then under controlled conditions, the humble CD was found to match vinyl for sound quality.

[DMK]

The issue here is that quite a few of the top CDPs measure differently, so where does leave your original statement, to get an idea of what I am saying get the measurements of the Sony SCD1, Naim CDX2 and the Moon Eclipse they measure differently and sound different as a consequence. On the corollary, If two turntables measure the same, guess what, they will sound the same, no prizes there, one of my biggest beefs with Stereophile, that they do not measure turntables, which leaves turntables reviews as guilty of the largest amount of hyperbole in the industry. If you can, get hold of the Hi-fi World where they measured a number of catridges, it was quite interesting, certainly shattered a lot of myths. I gathered that when a blind test was carried out between MC and MM catridges that MM catridges carried the day to consternation of many MC fans who under controlled conditions voted MM instead MC. Recently a 20 year old blind test was published by Hi-fi News ,where LP analog output was recorded directly to CD and played back under controlled test conditions, guess what the sworn audio enthusiasts could not distinguish between the CD and the vinyl rig, so much for vinyl sonic superiority, even way back then under controlled conditions, the humble CD was found to match vinyl for sound quality.

The CDP's you mentioned may indeed sound different - I've only heard the Naim. I pretty much gave up listening to different players a couple of years ago. You may be right.

I haven't read too much about turntable measurements but I can say that the majority of sonic differences have to do with the arm/cartridge than the table. That said, some tables sound different due to isolation architechture.

As for preference issues between MM and MC, certainly it depends on which cartridges are used. I'm an MC fan but the Blue Point Specials (for example) don't sound as good to me as the MM Grado woodbodies. On the other hand, I can find literally dozens of MC's that sound better than the most highly touted MM. But that's subjective. If someone prefers vinyl because of its "warm" sound, an MM cartridge will likely sound warmer with a rolled off top end. I haven't read that article and I'm only personally aware of the blind tests I've participated in, either as a listener or an observer. The MM's were never picked by anyone except the one time where an MC was used that had the most horrid FR peaks I've ever heard in an audio component. It was designed to sound "fast" and "vivid" and if those two characteristics were the designers sole intent, he succeeded quite nicely. If he also intended it to sound real or accurate, he failed miserably.

Vinyl sonic superiority - your test citation does nothing to disprove that LP's sound better than CD's but it does point out that CD's are a good storage medium. This is why it's dangerous to tout analog over digital. For the flip side, listen to a well recorded LP and it's corresponding CD. The CD sucks 98% of the time. I'm much less concerned about theory and measurement than I am reality and the reality is that, to my ears, LP's sound better. If that isn't sonic superiority, I'm at a loss as to what to call it. Perhaps better care was taken with the vinyl, I don't know. But if I'm holding two products and one of them performs its duty better via usage than another one that is proven by specs to perform better, I'll take the former.

[kexodusc]

I'll agree with that post DMK...I have some ol' Allman Bros albums on vinyl, especially "Live at the Fillmore", which sound like crap, even on the "remastered" versions...but my Rush LP's are slightlly outdone by the remastered CD's IMO...still, the looks I get when I spin an LP in front of my friends is worth it.

[theaudiohobby]

your test citation does nothing to disprove that LP's sound better than CD's but it does point out that CD's are a good storage medium. This is why it's dangerous to tout analog over digital. For the flip side, listen to a well recorded LP and it's corresponding CD. The CD sucks 98% of the time... to my ears, LP's sound better. If that isn't sonic superiority, I'm at a loss as to what to call it. Perhaps better care was taken with the vinyl, I don't know..

IOW, you prefer vinyl, but that is not in itself any evidence of sonic superiority either. I have never heard a vinyl rig beat a decent CD rig in back to back comparison. And I do not go around looking for remastered CDs to compare against equivalent LPs cos most of those CDs in question sound terribly inferior compared to the better CDs anyway, so saying that the equivalent LPs sound superior says nothing. I can think of a few in that category, Kool and the Gang, Whispers and Earth, Wind and Fire remastered CDs.

[Feanor]

IOW... I do not go around looking for remastered CDs to compare against equivalent LPs cos most of those CDs in question sound terribly inferior compared to the better CDs anyway, so saying that the equivalent LPs sound superior says nothing. ...

I have very few LP & CD duplicates. Of what I've heard, the worst are straight reissues on CD; to me, the main problem isn't "harshness"or "digital artifacts", but rather lack of detail and spatial information. Remasters are generally better but quite variable.

I'm mainly a classical listener and for that music recordings made in the '70's and 80's, whether analog or digitally recorded or mastered, are variable on CD. Quality recordings made in the '90's to present are better, but only on average. The best CDs, not to mention SACDs, made to day are great and I simply cannot imagine them sounding better on vinyl.

Newer CD players are better but not hugely. Granted, I my comparison is entry level and mid-range only -- I have no experience with multi-kilobuck units. With that qualification, I'd say that improvement today over, say, 10 years ago is quite subtle. What makes the biggest difference, IMO, is the recording process, not the play-back.

[DMK]

IOW, you prefer vinyl, but that is not in itself any evidence of sonic superiority either. I have never heard a vinyl rig beat a decent CD rig in back to back comparison. And I do not go around looking for remastered CDs to compare against equivalent LPs cos most of those CDs in question sound terribly inferior compared to the better CDs anyway, so saying that the equivalent LPs sound superior says nothing. I can think of a few in that category, Kool and the Gang, Whispers and Earth, Wind and Fire remastered CDs.

Correct - I prefer vinyl, which means nothing in the grand scheme of things. And I have yet to hear the vinyl rig that DOESN'T beat a CD rig - any CD rig - in back to back comparisons. Hell, I bought a used $50 Technics record spinner with a $90 cartridge that toasts any CD player. And I don't go around looking for CD's to replace vinyl, I look for vinyl to replace CD's. What usually happens is I find a CD of music I want to listen to and I play that until I can find it on vinyl - IF I can find it on vinyl. Hence, the comparisons. And I think it says a lot when 98% of the time an LP sonically bests the same CD. Some of the CD's I'm talking about are the so-called remasters or are somehow hyped as "better" sounding. The CD that beats the equivalent vinyl is rare, in my experience.

[DMK]

. The best CDs, not to mention SACDs, made to day are great and I simply cannot imagine them sounding better on vinyl..

You know - this brings up a point. I have to admit that I don't have one single LP that is an issue of brand new music. Everything is from the 1980's and prior. I wonder if I'd still feel the same (that LP's sound better than corresponding CD's) about the stuff released today. I have to say that the better sounding CD's I own are of new music. Whether that's because they are simpler better recorded/mastered or whether it's because I have no basis for comparison to vinyl is unknown. It might be interesting to check this out.

I should also state for the record that I'm not a digital hater. I think a lot of CD's sound pretty damn good. I'm listening to Ravi Shankar right now which is a lowly ADD and it sounds nice. For some reason it always makes me want to light incense, though.

[theaudiohobby]

I'm mainly a classical listener and for that music recordings made in the '70's and 80's, whether analog or digitally recorded or mastered, are variable on CD. Quality recordings made in the '90's to present are better, but only on average. The best CDs, not to mention SACDs, made to day are great and I simply cannot imagine them sounding better on vinyl.

I agree with you here, the best sounding CDs and SACDs that I have are post 1990 recordings though there are the a couple analog transfers that sound awesome like Isaac Stern's recording of Tchaikovsky Op35. For me I think that Classical and Jazz music have never sounded so good, some of Linns DSD Jazz and Pentatone classical music recordings are simply reference class.

[RGA]

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.

Great that was, if you READ my response the problem - I have NEVER EVER heard a well integrated Subwoofer system from anyone - including the people who designed the subwoofers who set-up the room. So by all means tell me where I can hear a good set-up - I will go to CES in the bnext 2 years - so I will make it a point to stop by Paradigm and Rel etc and let them prove to me that they have tuneful well integrated bass response - I'll keep an open mind - but you would think there would be one dealer in all of British Columbia in the last 15 years that could even get REMOTELY decent sound with a subwoofer. My dealer carries them sells them and roll their eyes at em.(and they have a paremetric EQ).

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.

The AN K doesn't have nearly the midrange openness nor the high frequency extension/air of the E or J, nor does it have the big bold tuneful body through the midrange . No subwoofer can change the tweeter a subwoofer should add sub bass (feeling bass) to the mix. Audio Note does not recommend the use of subwoofers for their speakers (except the AX Two - the reason should be obvious that subs are best in the front corner - but that is where the AN speakers should be placed.

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.

Umm of course subjective views are the ONLY thing of importance - if you can not listen to the two types of players and HEAR it - then why are you in the hobby? You obviously have no ear for transparency or to what sounds more like the live event. The objective measurements? what the hell are you talking about. First Audio Note DAC's fall down on THD just as ALL tube devices do - but THD has nothing whatsoever to do with transparency - Feedback destroys any bnotion of transparency - it is used to "trick" the measurements into looking better than they actually are. Indeed, the AN Dacs use none they don't oversample they use no brickwall filters which HACKS OFF everything above a certain frequency - study up and listen to one instead of touting this dysmal tripe the industry would like you to belive.

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.

Then give me an example of a perfectly transparent speaker - the words annalytical or cold are not transparent not your ELACs not NAIM certainly not Naim as Bob Neill shows is totally not a transparent cd player nor is the Sony.

Transparent is a bad word just like accuracy is a bad word - because both imply the same thing - NOTHING is trulty transparent and Nothing not anything is accurate. It is either accurate or it is not. The units that reveal the most differences in recordings are morre accurate than those that homogonize the sound - you can ONLY tell this by listening - the theory behind the AN DAC's make more sense - you have a one time play through approach with out correcting devices to fix all the errors your player makes - It should scan pass through and output to the Preamp not have 12 stages of feedback and correction and digital smoothing and endless time domain fixing that sounds like crap but measures better.

There is no point in further discussion - We are polar opposites on our views of audio Equipment.

[RGA]

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.

Actually what you say is quite interesting - measurements are ONLY useful if they correlate to the human perception or subjective evaluation that came first. Martin Colloms first of all is not your average reviewer - He's not a subjective only reviewer. He is a world renowned expert on acoustics design and is an acoustics engineer - Awarded Chartership of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 1981. and a MacRobert Award Finalist 2000 (with Neil Harris and Henry Azima), Royal Academy of Engineers. As opposed to the AudioHobby who is a nobody from the internet. Paul Messenger also has a nice list of credentials as well. Both have said that the DAC 5 is the best Digital to analog converter on the market PERIOD. That does not mean there are NO other good players - and it does not mean that YOU or I will go and listen and not like something else better. Hi-Fi CHoice has done blind level matched listening to Bose speakers and given them recommended tags and like the CM series of B&W over the CDM series?? I would disagree. http://www.colloms.com/

People will still have opinions - the fact that somthing is more or less accutrate or more or less transparent - well I only need to go and listen for that to become readily apparent. Single Ended amplifiers are less accurate if you go by one set of measurements and far more accurate than any and all SS amplification devices if you go by measurements around linearity. To me these debates are ridiculous - you can tell when you hear it - and assuming you're not stacking the deck as most do then you can get excellent results either way.

This is the heart of the DAC 5 that despite the fact that there will be some very odd measured anomolies - the RESULT of this is a more truthful analog of the musical event. Audio Note (and they're not alone on this no times oversampling DAC), use computers and measuring equipment which is supposed to be quite sophistacated from the reviewers who have been to their plant. They have more advanced measuring equipment than makers that are quite a bit bigger than themselves - for instance they can closely match speakers to .2db something that not even KEF and B&W are capable of even in their top models - Kef brags about .5db in their flagship. Now of course this is silly because .5db is good enough of course to the ear - and this kind of thing is more about bragging rights - but it is not done by some guy sitting in a chair doing it by ear - it's with measuring equipent and sophisticated computer software. Which is why Audio Note is getting about 25hz more bass from the same cabinet and drivers that Snell got with his speaker - you don't just rebadge something to get those results.

If you pick up issue #68 of UHF magazine they reviewed the Audio Note entry level DAC's and measured them objectively "The -60db sine wave... was pretty well perfect...Jitter was very low, and remained low even on deliberately damaged CD tracks( it muted with a cut of 2mm or more)." "Well I'm impressed! This High End player produces an ambience that makes the presence of musicians palpable. Faithful Reproduction is accompanied by exceptional definition.../..Pile on the p[iano, voice, percussion, and a big orchestra, and you won;t note any distortion (Reine Lessard) "There's almost nothing bad to say about this player, except that it sounds slightly forward compared to my other favorites. But "forward" in this case doesn;t translate into shrill, or clinical, or flat. In Musical terms, everything comes out of this player sounding as it should. If higher praise exists, I don;t know what it could be." (Gerard Rejkind) "Nothing seemed overdone, no musician tried to take over the stage.../...did I mention that their timbre is always right on? nothing seems to be added, nothing seems to be missing across the well-balanced stage. Colors were distinctly displayed, as musical textures appeared in transparent shades. And you know what? Nothing was meant to impress...that's what impressed me about it.(Albert Simon).

As you know UHF is maybe the most picky magazine review outfit available when it comes to cd players. "In Patricia Barber's Like FT fromthe live Compaion disc, the kick drum's impact was actually startling. But that wasn't all. Barber's piano sounded better than with our reference, sounding much more like a quality grand piano, each note carrying new energy. The percussion amazed us too, because it was so detailed we could follow the movement of the drumsticks on the varied surfaces. Amazing...and exciting too!" (BTW they use a very good Counterpoint CD player as their reference). http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue68/Issue68.html You can click to open as a PDF and read much of it for free - though they blank part of the review out because they ant you to buy the download or the issue. Still this player is far cheaper than the Counterpoint reference model.

This was snippets of their review for the bottom of the line Dac One 1x and CDT one transport($1650US each box). If you think digital glare and etchy bright fatiguing treble is accurate then that is your opinion - I think being able to produce instruments the way i hear them when i listen to live music is what is accurate - the standard measurements are geared to the former sound. i believe the cd medium gets a bum rap too - the fault is not the cd's themselves but the players trying not to make most discs sound like caca when they are actually pretty good.

But don;t believe the reviews or me - real simple listen to an ALL audio note systemm(and it is important and then IN THE SAME room listen to a top of the line Krell/Mark Levinson/Classe solid state system with a B&W N801 or the top Paraidgm or Energy or Wilson or Martin Logan. Make sure this non Audio Note system totals 4 times the money - I have. I'll stand by my opinion as to which set-up makes music sound like music. It has to measure differently in order to be better - since it sounds better it should by logic measure differently. If it measured exactly the same as the Arcam's of the world then it would sound the same -- and I got rid of such players and amplifiers for a reason - not for warmth not for midrange bloom - but to get a realistic presentation of music.

[theaudiohobby]

RGA,

Get your facts right, Martin Colloms gave the honour of best digital playback ever to the Naim CDX3, where he said that 'It has surpassed every digital implementation to date, and that it does this for the existing CD catalogue...' (HFN 10/2003)

[RGA]

There is nothing wrong with my facts. Nice try but there is a date issue here. He reviewed the DAC 5 in 1998 and again in 2000. You post a review from him of a $24,000.00 cd player in 2003. This still does not apply to Paul Messenger or Bob Neill - both of whom like Naim as well. And to give Naim their just credit from my own personal standpoint if I were looking at SS gear Naim would be on my shortlist. I am not going to get into this debate that you seem to be under the impression that the ONLY product I will recommend is Audio Note. What I am saying to you is that if a reviewer you respect wheher it be audio or film - comes out and lists a DAC or cd player as best - do you take his word ONLY? No anyone who did that would be an idot. Even if I respect him or say a Roger Ebert I am not goingt o JUST accept his word for it and agree that Citizen Kane is the greates of all film ever. No, I am going to find out about his runner ups.

The fact of the matter is the BOTH Naim and Audio Note(and they're not alone) make in the reviewers opinions "WORLD Class" sounding DACs. The decision STILL rests with YOU and ME and every other individual. Would you say that if a DAC such as the AN Dac 5 with all the unanimous praise and the odd detractors is now totally not worth even auditioning? That the same reviewer who loved the DAC 5 is a nut but now that he says somehting good about Naim he's now a genius again? No only a moron would say don't audition it. So If someone was shopping in the $25,000.00 range they would or should be listening to several such CD players and decide which sounds best for them. After all Stereophile had a Cambridge Audio CD player in their recommended componants listing and the same model was totally rubished with a 2 star rating in What Hi-fi - OBVIOUSLY the reviewers didn't hear it the same in that system.

If you notice I never ever tell someone to BUY Audio Note unless they can go and hear it first. I don't want anyone buying without auditioning - by the same token though people look for personal experiences - I tell people what I compared what I heard directly against other equipment. I merely stated way back that having heard mega buck cd players compared to cheap entry cd players - I noticed the most improvement in sound a more open natural presentation which allowed me to hear more of what was going on with the 3.1 cd player. That does not mean that if the Naim player in this system was used that I would not have preferred the Naim - it may very very very well be the case that I would rather the Naim player. I am not glued to one piece of gear. For instance in my signiture you cans ee my upgrade path - but you can bet your ass that when it comes time to actually buy I'll be auditioning several of the competitors in my price range. Those are there becuase I liked what I heard from them but I did not do an A/B test with other Turntables - ie; I did not spend all day or several days a/bing the TT1 versus a similarly priced Rega or Linn. I can say that I very much liked the TT1 musically. But Rega and linn are not dogs by any means. This applies to DAC's amps Speakers etc.

However ultimately there is also a system matching componant to all of this as well - you simply cannot match anything with anything and get a truly great system - even the magazines quantify their reviews by saying that. So in fact you may elect the 4 star cd player over the 5 star cd player because the 4 star sounds a helluva lot better in your system and the 5 star could be pretty banal sounding. The constantine Soo article of the AN E suggested that with matching amps - some worrked a lot better than others -- all the amps were excellent from several different manufactures and by themselves terrific pieces of gear - Bryston makes great amplifiers - but it REALLY depends on what speaker you plan to use because the result can be abysmal then again the result can be "you don't need to spend more on a Krell" excellence.

[theaudiohobby]

RGA,

In the end, your last post brings us back to where we started, i.e. The Audio Note DAC is not transparent. Also, your comments about the filters, distortion etc is just so funny, you may think that you are making sense but all you are showing is your ignorance. When UHF bought a new reference player, they bought a Linn Unidisk , I think you should read their comments on the new digital formats.

[Geoffcin]

NO name calling.

[theaudiohobby]

The AN K doesn't have nearly the midrange openness nor the high frequency extension/air of the E or J, nor does it have the big bold tuneful body through the midrange . No subwoofer can change the tweeter a subwoofer should add sub bass (feeling bass) to the mix. Audio Note does not recommend the use of subwoofers for their speakers (except the AX Two - the reason should be obvious that subs are best in the front corner - but that is where the AN speakers should be placed.

Your comments about the actual role of a subwoofer are evidence of your appalling ignorance on main speaker/subwoofer integration. The very benefits that you attribute to the J and E models are where a subwoofer bass augmentation offers the greatest benefits. The 'the midrange openness' ,the 'high frequency' extension/air of the E or J, (and) 'the big bold tuneful body through the midrange' are benefits of extra bass extension. When the music fundamentals in the 20 - 100 Hz region are augmented by the subwoofer, a greater sense of transparency is perceived, as the system is more transparent as a result of the extra bass extension which mitigates the loss of transparency caused by the higher bass roll-off (~70Hz) of the bookshelf model, in this case the K model.

Then give me an example of a perfectly transparent speaker - the words annalytical or cold are not transparent not your ELACs not NAIM certainly not Naim as Bob Neill shows is totally not a transparent cd player nor is the Sony.

Transparent is a bad word just like accuracy is a bad word - because both imply the same thing - NOTHING is trulty transparent and Nothing not anything is accurate. It is either accurate or it is not. The units that reveal the most differences in recordings are morre accurate than those that homogonize the sound - you can ONLY tell this by listening - the theory behind the AN DAC's make more sense.

• Body Fullness of sound, with particular emphasis on upper bass.
• Analytical Highly detailed
• Detail The most delicate elements of the original sound and those that are the first to disappear with lesser equipment (Hifi Choice Glossary)
• Definition or resolution the ability of a component to reveal the subtle information that is fundamental to high fidelity sound.

Nothing is life is perfect, but various terms are used to decribe various conditions when those conditions are satisfied within certain acceptable limits. Moving on, analytical and transparency are related audio terms, analytical is closer in meaning to transparency than it is to homogeneous, homogeneous is the antithesis of analytical, as an analytical system by definition has the ability to reveal the most differences between recordings. By definition a more analytical system will be more transparent than a less analytical one in direct contrast to your comments. The rub here is this, whilst you proclaim that listening is important, you have made comments about various components that you have never heard, even your comments about homogeneity are picked entirely out of the PQ article as opposed to being something that you have arrived at on your steam. Have your ever heard the Burmester or the Naim or Audio Capitole or the Reimyo or the top Teacs? You have not heard them, so how do you know that the Audio Note DAC 5 is more transparent, accurate and/or better sounding than any of these components? How do you know that the AN DAC5 is more accurate than any of these other components? You do not know because all your comments on these components is based entirely on what you have read not on any listening experience of yours.

You make a lot of noise, but that is all it is, noise.

[RGA]

Your comments about the actual role of a subwoofer are evidence of your appalling ignorance on main speaker/subwoofer integration. The very benefits that you attribute to the J and E models are where a subwoofer bass augmentation offers the greatest benefits. The 'the midrange openness' ,the 'high frequency' extension/air of the E or J, (and) 'the big bold tuneful body through the midrange' are benefits of extra bass extension. When the music fundamentals in the 20 - 100 Hz region are augmented by the subwoofer, a greater sense of transparency is perceived, as the system is more transparent as a result of the extra bass extension which mitigates the loss of transparency caused by the higher bass roll-off (~70Hz) of the bookshelf model, in this case the K model.

You made a claim that the AN K with a Sub would sound better than the E - it does not because the fundamental soundin the midrange and the treble of the K isn;t as good as the J or E. You cannot run Audio Note speakers cutting frequencies off and shifting them to a subwoofer. The reason is that Audio Note requires the active involment of the internal cabinet esonances to work - the resulting sound is quite poor. The K being an acoustic suspension design is already a difficult speaker to mesh with a sub but will work better than the J or E - but no sub can make the midrange or treble good enough to beat the J or E...the spekaer doesn't use the same drivers for a start.

never heard, even your comments about homogeneity are picked entirely out of the PQ article as opposed to being something that you have arrived at on your steam.

Not so - i have been saying years before I ever heard of Audio Note that most stuff I've been hearing is similar sounding drek. Audio Note certainly helped me notice it a lot better.

You have not heard them, so how do you know that the Audio Note DAC 5 is more transparent, accurate and/or better sounding than any of these components? How do you know that the AN DAC5 is more accurate than any of these other components? [/QUOTE]

But i never made any such claim that he DAC 5 was the best DAC or that I felt it was the best DAC - I specifically said what I thought of "A" Audio Note CD player versus another and that it made more of an improvement than i have heard in the past with other oplayers. You are inventing my position for some reason.

[RGA]

RGA,

In the end, your last post brings us back to where we started, i.e. The Audio Note DAC is not transparent. Also, your comments about the filters, distortion etc is just so funny, you may think that you are making sense but all you are showing is your ignorance. When UHF bought a new reference player, they bought a Linn Unidisk , I think you should read their comments on the new digital formats.

Actually I think it is you who knows little about the cd format - the first cd players are very reminiscent of the AN DAC's - the ORIGINAL theory was best but they Sony/Phillips could not get it right. But you should know that right. UHF bought a $16,000.00 all in one player - your point is what. They said the AN system bettered their reference player. I would hope a player 5 times more expensive and from a great audio company like Linn would be better than a 5 year old discontinued bottom of the line AN DAC and Transport combination. They state no such thing - The AN is not what they want - an all in one player.

Not transparent - nothing is transparent - analytical the word is different from analytical the adjective associated with the luistening experience - no music should EVER "sound" subjectively analyticall or cold. Bob Neill reviewed the AN and a good Naim player. I trust him more than you.

[theaudiohobby]

The K being an acoustic suspension design is already a difficult speaker to mesh with a sub but will work better than the J or E - but no sub can make the midrange or treble good enough to beat the J or E...the speaker doesn't use the same drivers for a start.

You better stop digging your yourself into a hole, an acoustic suspension design is already a difficult speaker to mesh with a sub , that is a new one. , care to explain?

[kexodusc]

RGA: I can't think of any reason other than personal preference (which is quite valid, but difficult to apply universally) why an acoustic suspension design would hinder a sub's ability to enhance the bottom end...having heard some AN's in systems with subwoofers (one built with a quality Fostex woofer by the way), I disagree that you can't improve the sound. You can. And when you relieve the woofer of the bottom 2 or 3 octaves, you'll generally find that midrange IMPROVES.
I wouldn't add a $400 sub to the AN K's (or any speakers except for home theater use for that matter) but a decent sub should take nothing away from the speakers, and only add to the experience...what's so bad about that?

[lumiere]

I am not going to get into this debate that you seem to be under the impression that the ONLY product I will recommend is Audio Note.

I wonder where would he have gotten that idea from.

[BRANDONH]

IOW, you prefer vinyl, but that is not in itself any evidence of sonic superiority either. I have never heard a vinyl rig beat a decent CD rig in back to back comparison. And I do not go around looking for remastered CDs to compare against equivalent LPs cos most of those CDs in question sound terribly inferior compared to the better CDs anyway, so saying that the equivalent LPs sound superior says nothing. I can think of a few in that category, Kool and the Gang, Whispers and Earth, Wind and Fire remastered CDs.

Half speed mastered LP's are amazing especially Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab's new Gain 2 ultra analog recordings.
http://www.mofi.com/

[BRANDONH]

You know - this brings up a point. I have to admit that I don't have one single LP that is an issue of brand new music. Everything is from the 1980's and prior. I wonder if I'd still feel the same (that LP's sound better than corresponding CD's) about the stuff released today. I have to say that the better sounding CD's I own are of new music. Whether that's because they are simpler better recorded/mastered or whether it's because I have no basis for comparison to vinyl is unknown. It might be interesting to check this out.

I should also state for the record that I'm not a digital hater. I think a lot of CD's sound pretty damn good. I'm listening to Ravi Shankar right now which is a lowly ADD and it sounds nice. For some reason it always makes me want to light incense, though.

White Stripes issues almost all of their new stuff on vinyl.
http://www.streetlightrecords.com/
search White Stripes

[RGA]

RGA: I can't think of any reason other than personal preference (which is quite valid, but difficult to apply universally) why an acoustic suspension design would hinder a sub's ability to enhance the bottom end...having heard some AN's in systems with subwoofers (one built with a quality Fostex woofer by the way), I disagree that you can't improve the sound. You can. And when you relieve the woofer of the bottom 2 or 3 octaves, you'll generally find that midrange IMPROVES.
I wouldn't add a $400 sub to the AN K's (or any speakers except for home theater use for that matter) but a decent sub should take nothing away from the speakers, and only add to the experience...what's so bad about that?

Firstly I can't dig a whole on this issue since i have never heard a subwoofer properly integrate with any speaker ever by anyone that "help" the musical event. It helps add bass depth and volume. I have heard a two subwoofer system do a good job and dedicated subwoofer speaker set-ups like the Gersman X1 standmount you can buy the Sub 1 sub base that go under them - some set-ups like this work...but that;s not the same thing entirely - these are basically just three ways - as we've all heard from martin Logan sub integration in this manner with very different materials doesn't always work and you get a sub to panel hick-up as with ML. How ruinous this is up to you because i still like most of what the panels are doing.

Acoustic suspension speakers tend to have a tighter quicker sounding bass response and and tend not to go as deep in the lower registers - which requires the subwoofer to act as a woofer. If you can hear male voices through your sub with all other speakers turned OFF then You have two problems - one is that to get a balanced stereo image you NEED two of them - or 2 you need a better subwoofer. Because Audio Note requires or deems best a corner placement and because most subwoofers require a corner placement - you have a problem - BOTH can not be put in the corner. I'm not imposing on anyone that they should not buy a subwoofer - it you can't hear my problems with them that is fine - if you feel a sub will make the E better that too is fine. I agree with Peter that subwoofers don;t mesh well with his speakers - since he designs them and has tried the best subs currently available with them - I have attempted subs on speakers numerously and i don;t get acceptable results. To me they are artifical bass tone controls for people who want a "loudness" button at 30hz. Truth betold I don't blame them because some standmounts like the 705 are SO incredibly anaemic in bass and dynamics that I would take my grumbles with Subs in a HEARTBEAT over being forced to live with that speaker by itself.

Before you jump on me about the loudness comment the E is -3db at 22hz and has a slight pronouncement(~+1db) in bass from 40hz up to 200hz. I'm not exactly sure why one would desire a subwoofer unless you deliberately want to get a +10db lift at 40hz. I only see the point of these for something like the K which bottoms out at 36hz - you would obviously need a sub to get it to 25hz and a very good sub to get it to 15-20hz. But the cost of this combined is MORE than buying an AN E - and you sacrifice a lot of midrange prowess, midrange and midbass dynamics and a much superior treble. This not to say the E has the most bass in the world - and he is working to get more out of it. The Sogon hits 12hz at good level - the one he brought to a show my dealer and a customer had a nice 16hz demo that shook the walls(so it can do it at level as well). I also know they are working on a E speaker dedicated(only for the E) single ended 845 tube powered sub like my previous examples of Gershman. AN has been working on it for 4 years. They may never bring it to market unless it's bang on. I'm not saying it CAN'T be done I'm saying I have yet to hear it being done to an acceptable level for me. As for my comment on Acoustic suspension it was discussed a while ago on AA. For me it may as well apply to panels and ported units too. I'd be happy to have a sub for home theater.