$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

In decent players for a modest cost. Only a few years ago it was really easy to hear the difference between a budget player, and a high end model. Now it's gotten a lot closer, and as others have already stated there could be other places that your $$$ can get you more bang. With that being said; The best source is always the best choice. Your speakers driven with good amplification WILL be able to tell the difference between a good source, and a GREAT source. The choice is up to you.

[RGA]

"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"

Well this is not correlational to every piece of gear. Just because you spend more certainly doesn't mean you'll get more. I have only really noticed a startling improvement - one that was significant enough to make me say yeah that obscene amopunt of money is worth spending for sonic improvement on a cd player. And is FAR from the most expensive cd player. I have compared $200.00 Sony's to $2000.00 Sonys and heard no idfference even through level matched headphones. I have differences that made the sound worse that cost a lot of money like the original Rega Planet. Recently i was listening to a good budget Teac player - I switched it out for an Audio Note 3.1 cd player that goes for about $4,000.00. IMO - it's worth it - it's worth it on $2k AN K speakers and i'd rather this set up than the Teac at ~$400.00 and a set of B&W N802's.

Abd yes I'm an AN fanboy - but the cd player has a different design topology than almost all other cd players on the market without a digital filter and a direct play no times oversampling system - it should be worse - it no doubt measures worse - but it sounds one helluva lot better than any other cd playing digital system - simply because it captures the high frequency resoplution better and doesn't sound sheeny etchy or bright - but still extended - no warm and fuzzy but transparent without the grain I get from all the cd players in my house.

Ny Cambridge Audio is "marginally" better than my 300 disc mega changer - but the price difference wasn'tt marginal so yes if these are the cd players you have heard the I wholeheartedly agee with anyone of this opinion that the differences are very very small - but the Cambridge is better more easy to listen to in the long wrong - but had I to do it over again I would have started with the 300 disc changer and saved the money spent on the Cambridge for something else. Notice I didn't say I would buy the AN 3.1 - at $4k I may think highly of it and if i were rich sure - but realistically it's out of my price range - and that price is for a discontinued demo model.

I also know that there are some who have not heard the Audio Note's won't listen to them based off this design approach due to its higher THD levels. But like i always say - for something to sound substantially superior to the homogenious stuff on the market - it has to be different in order to do it. With high THD I was expecting a real world impact on the sound like a buzz or hiss or distorted voices or screechy cymbals - SO- so much for THD

[theaudiohobby]

Abd yes I'm an AN fanboy - but the cd player has a different design topology than almost all other cd players on the market without a digital filter and a direct play no times oversampling system - it should be worse - it no doubt measures worse - but it sounds one helluva lot better than any other cd playing digital system - simply because it captures the high frequency resoplution better and doesn't sound sheeny etchy or bright - but still extended - no warm and fuzzy but transparent without the grain I get from all the cd players in my house.

The AN fanboy quoting the party line as usual, I think you should read the recent posts on AA about the AN DAC. And before you start quoting Martin Colloms I think you should read his comments on Naim CDS3 which has a more conventional implementation. Fuzzy is exactly the word that describes the AN DAC/players, transparent they are not and paradoxically it is one of their major selling points since it is excused as having an 'analog' sound, which is funny since their lack of transparency is an artifact of their implementation. Any person that feels that any of the Cambridge Audio CDP models even begin to compete with the USD6000 price bracket is simply living in cookoo land. The last time I looked the Cambridge Audio were vying for a place amongst the midrange NAD CDPs.

Back to the thread topic, I do not know the American market very well, but IMHO, the more expensive players do have that something that sound very right. Secondly, tubed outputs are no panacea, as I have heard a few that were totally outclassed by their SS brethen in back to back comparisons. If you spend your USD6000 wisely, you will have player that no sub USD1000 CDP can touch.

[kexodusc]

Dear god, RGA, did you just recommend a $4000 CD player because it's capable of making improvements WORTH the $4000 allocation?


Are you nuts? For $4000, surely the An E's and an Arcam would acheive greater results than just the 3.1 and the K's?
You could sell your K's (probably trade up at fair value) and be way further ahead.

Tell me again...is this CD player that good?

I'm not poking fun at you here...I've not heard this unit, but if you come back and tell me that this $4000 player is, in your estimation, worth allocating $4000 on a system with $2000 speakers (which I'm quite familiar with), then I promise you, next weekend when I make a visit to a certain AN fanboy I know, listen to the 3.1 and submit a review here at AR.com of this player.

As for THD...I don't know the specs, I've never seen this unit yet, but IMO if the cumulative THD of a system is below 1%, maybe 2%, it's doubtful any human alive can hear it. This gives a lot of room. I don't doubt a higher THD CD player could sound better than a lower one.

I've heard plenty tube amps with high THD's sound better than low THD Kenwood receivers.

[theaudiohobby]

Are you nuts? For $4000, surely the An E's and an Arcam would acheive greater results than just the 3.1 and the K's?
You could sell your K's (probably trade up at fair value) and be way further ahead.

Tell me again...is this CD player that good?

IMHO, the more balanced sound will come from the

$4000 CDP
AN K
and a decent subwoofer

rather than

AN-E
and the Arcam..

[DMK]

[QUOTE=RGA
Abd yes I'm an AN fanboy - but the cd player has a different design topology than almost all other cd players on the market without a digital filter and a direct play no times oversampling system - it should be worse - it no doubt measures worse - but it sounds one helluva lot better than any other cd playing digital system - simply because it captures the high frequency resoplution better and doesn't sound sheeny etchy or bright - but still extended - no warm and fuzzy but transparent without the grain I get from all the cd players in my house.[/QUOTE]

Have to agree the AN CDP's sound different, and actually better, than the oversampled, digital filter messes that are out there. But I tend to be careful about using words such as "transparent" because transparency (to me) means true to the source - the source in this case being the source disc. I have no doubt the AN players distort the source disc, the same as LP's are not as faithful to the master tape as are CD's. However, I'm a poor excuse for an audiophile in that I don't worry too much about transparency. Rather, I concern myself with the system's faithfulness to the live event, or at least my idea of what the live event sounds like. The fact that AN players and LP's sound more like live violins, saxes, guitars, etc makes them more "correct".

Regardless of this, I still cannot recommend spending a disproportionate amount of money on the front end. On the other hand, once your system is in place and you've taken care of the room acoustics, the speakers and the amplification, if you can get a 2% improvement (as an example) for 6000% more money and it's worth it to you, by all means you should go with it. No one is saying that by spending 6000% more (again, just an example) that one is getting anything approaching that much improvement. But if you've got the scratch, that 2% might be worth it.