$1200 vs $200 cd players

[Geoffcin]

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

Is that you use the onboard DAC's to decode the signal. To do this you have to use the analog (rca) outputs. If you've heard even a slight diffference so far, then you've been able to hear just the difference in the transport, which by any measure is very slight indeed.

[jfish]

ok. makes sense now.

so i would be comparing the rca out (arcam) to the digital out (sony)

[N. Abstentia]

No you would want to compare RCA vs. RCA. If you use digital out, you're bypassing the DAC's in the player.

[RGA]

Also an amplifier and speakers can be a limiting factor - unlike UHF who on this I disagree with - the rest of the system requires a certain degree of higher resolution to be able to make subtle differences noticable. If owned a receiver - and I do - I would not bother spending much on a dedicated cd player or turntable - IMO there would be no point. I would buy the cheapest possible dvd/cd player combo with the features and build construction that you desire. An Arcam would be a waste IMO.

.

[kexodusc]

I own the Arcam CD72, excellent player, I also own a very mid-fi Yamaha player I paid $200 for. I can barely here a difference on my a/v receiver when using the digital outputs...on my Rotel integrated in my main stereo, the differences are a bit more noticeable...for whatever reason, the Yamaha seems to come through a bit louder at first, but when volume compensated, the Arcam is a tad bit better. It's not a huge difference though. The clash of symbals is the biggest improvement I can tell...not much added in the way of soundstage depth, imaging etc...I have some very competent Vifa/Scan-Speak rull range towers connected to the Rotel, and the Yamaha sounds great in this system too.
Since I got the Arcam used at less than 50% of the new price, it was worth it for me...I don't think at full retail it would be "better enough" to justify the added cost though. Hence, I'm not completely sold on the merits of "high-end" CD players. I think that $1000 difference might account for 5-10% sound improvement tops, and this might be very generous. You might be better off to consider upgrading another component, speakers, amp/pre-amp first to get a bigger improvement.

For music like rock, blues, techno/electronic, I don't think it's really worth it at all. For Jazz and classical, with more demanding dynamics there's a few subtleties that will come through in the Arcam. If this sounds "elitist", well, it probably is.

I agree with some other assessments...I'd put the money towards a better amp before putting that money towards a CD player...the improvement would be more noticeable. Worth $1000??? Only you can decide that.

[DMK]

I own the Arcam CD72, excellent player, I also own a very mid-fi Yamaha player I paid $200 for. I can barely here a difference on my a/v receiver when using the digital outputs...on my Rotel integrated in my main stereo, the differences are a bit more noticeable...for whatever reason, the Yamaha seems to come through a bit louder at first, but when volume compensated, the Arcam is a tad bit better. It's not a huge difference though. The clash of symbals is the biggest improvement I can tell...not much added in the way of soundstage depth, imaging etc...I have some very competent Vifa/Scan-Speak rull range towers connected to the Rotel, and the Yamaha sounds great in this system too.
Since I got the Arcam used at less than 50% of the new price, it was worth it for me...I don't think at full retail it would be "better enough" to justify the added cost though. Hence, I'm not completely sold on the merits of "high-end" CD players. I think that $1000 difference might account for 5-10% sound improvement tops, and this might be very generous. You might be better off to consider upgrading another component, speakers, amp/pre-amp first to get a bigger improvement.

For music like rock, blues, techno/electronic, I don't think it's really worth it at all. For Jazz and classical, with more demanding dynamics there's a few subtleties that will come through in the Arcam. If this sounds "elitist", well, it probably is.

I agree with some other assessments...I'd put the money towards a better amp before putting that money towards a CD player...the improvement would be more noticeable. Worth $1000??? Only you can decide that.

Interesting story, and one that confirms my experiences. I've owned, heard and set up for others untold numbers of systems. I've never once found a system where the CDP was the limiting factor. In fact, often when setting a system up for someone, I'm given very severe budget restraints. I ALWAYS cut corners on the CDP and end up with a much better sounding system than if I cut corners on another component. I've heard all the arguments about "garbage in, garbage out" and that you should put the bulk of money into the digital front end because you'll never fix at the end what was wrong in the front. While correct in theory, the fact is that digital components have reached a point where there are only very very minor improvements available. In other words, CDP's have the lowest point of diminishing returns of all audio components. Spend 6000% more, get a 2% improvement if you're lucky. I would every single time recommend that the bulk of the audio budget go elsewhere unless the CDP simply doesn't function properly. So far, I've had no complaints.

[kexodusc]

I. Spend 6000% more, get a 2% improvement if you're lucky. I would every single time recommend that the bulk of the audio budget go elsewhere unless the CDP simply doesn't function properly. So far, I've had no complaints.

1) Speakers
2) Amp & Pre-amp...I give equal weighting to both at the start, but depending on your speakers, the amp could be a bit more important - like if you've got really low sensitivity speakers or something.
3) Room Acoustics (and setup) - rugs, wall hangings, plants etc, every bit helps and it can be cheap
4) Source - Important, but don't get carried away
5) Cables - I find allocating resources to one of the above will always yield more audible results than allocating the same resources to just cables, but once a year or so I find Monster, Acoustic Research, etc on a clearance sale and I dive in.

Funny thing is, I've met people who would REVERSE my priority list in the exact OPPOSITE order and swear it's the right way to go...I don't have the money to test that method against mine.

[theaudiohobby]

For music like rock, blues, techno/electronic, I don't think it's really worth it at all. For Jazz and classical, with more demanding dynamics there's a few subtleties that will come through in the Arcam. If this sounds "elitist", well, it probably is.

I agree with some other assessments...I'd put the money towards a better amp before putting that money towards a CD player...the improvement would be more noticeable. Worth $1000??? Only you can decide that.

In many systems, the amplifier is a big bottleneck as I discovered while back, I changed my preamplifier to the Rotel RHC05, and from that time on I was on the road to audio paradise. I have since moved from that beautiful preamplifier, but it taught me one thing, the greatest source and speakers in the world will sound crap when hamstrung by indifferent amplification. Even modestly priced speakers sound excellent when powered by decent amplification. A great source is important, but its sonic superiority may be totally inaudible if hamstrung by indifferent amplification and speakers.

As much as I like Classical and Jazz, I listen to both genres about 80% of the time, I think that jazz and rock music and such like expose the high frequency performance of players much more than classical music, whereas classical music exposes the dynamics limitations of players.

[kexodusc]

In many systems, the amplifier is a big bottleneck as I discovered while back, I changed my preamplifier to the Rotel RHC05, and from that time on I was on the road to audio paradise. I have since moved from that beautiful preamplifier, but it taught me one thing, the greatest source and speakers in the world will sound crap when hamstrung by indifferent amplification. Even modestly priced speakers sound excellent when powered by decent amplification. A great source is important, but its sonic superiority may be totally inaudible if hamstrung by indifferent amplification and speakers.

As much as I like Classical and Jazz, I listen to both genres about 80% of the time, I think that jazz and rock music and such like expose the high frequency performance of players much more than classical music, whereas classical music exposes the dynamics limitations of players.

I never cease to be amazed by the difference of opinions. I sympathize with your point of view. Amplification is pretty darn important, more important than a source player.

I once performed my own limited experiment. I started this experiment initially to test out an infamous AR.com poster's statements that A/V receivers and more "hi-fi" integrateds should sound the same if used within design limitations, then I started to play around I have a very modest Rotel RA-1070, the best integrated amp I've ever owned, and an older 2-channel Onkyo receiver that wouldn't have sold for $200 brand new. I connected my Axiom M3 Ti's (which are about $275 and very average IMO for that price) to the Rotel, and my Vifa/Scan-speak full range towers (price withheld, but they outperform most $2000 $2500 speakers I've heard, certainly the best I've ever owned) to the Onkyo receiver.

The better speakers still made the music sound better, even with the receiver. But this example was very extreme. Perhaps it's not as apparent when you pick equipment closer in price and performance?

In your estimation, would you say a Pre-Amp is more important than an Amp, about equal, or less important?

[DMK]

the greatest speakers in the world will sound crap when hamstrung by indifferent amplification. .

Agreed that this is often possible. But it's not as bad a sound as having great amplification powering crappy speakers. Amplification differences are rarely as night and day as speakers. Compare a Krell pre/power combo vs a cheap Pioneer receiver and then compare Krell speakers vs cheap Pioneers and you'll see what I mean. The Pioneer receiver will sound noticeably worse but not nearly as bad as those speakers! Certain speakers have night and day differences in sound.

Well, I can think of more to write but I think I'm going to bow out here as this topic has been done to death here at A/R! All I can say is that my experience in every single case has been to take care of the speakers first when dealing with a limited budget and then fold the amp and source budget in to the remainder. The few times I've been dictated to otherwise led to horribly dissatisfying sound or at least compromised sound... so I have to continue to recommend that route until my experience changes.