$1200 vs $200 cd players

[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.

[kexodusc]

That does it...I've gots to hear me this AN CD player...

On a side note, I did some thinking last night about diminishing returns as it applies to audio purchases.
I concluded that eventually it would have to come back to the CD player. Let's say your system for extreme example sake is comprised of some fancy high end $12000 Focus Audio speakers, a top of the line Bryston amp/preamp combo, Nordost cables, solid room treatments, the whole works, and you run a basic quality Denon or Rotel CD player. If you've got $4000 to allocate chances are the biggest difference you could make at this point WOULD be the CD player.

But, for those of us that own $2500 speakers, $2000 electronics, I just can't (yet) justify spending $4000 on the source. Stay tuned for a review of the 3.1 sometime in the next 10 days.






If you have $4000 to spend, c

[jfish]

i have no idea what you guys are talking about...lol

[BillB]

If I had to rank what had the biggest effect on your sound it would go something like this:

1. Software
2. Room Acoustics (taking into consideration speaker/listener placement as well)
3. Speakers
4. Amplification
5. Source (in this case a CD Player)
6. Accessories

My software is quite often not the best (mainly modern rock). I took my then 2-ch system in a direction I thought would make those sub-standard recordings a little more listenable. I put away my NAD Integrated Amp and bought a Musical Fidelity. When my second NAD CD player in three months bit the bullet, I bought a Rega Planet 2000. I boxed up my NHT SuperTwos and brought in a pair of Vienna Acoustics Mozarts. I then moved that whole system out of a cramped bedroom at my parents house into a spare bedroom in my first house.

I began searching for "audiophile" quality recordings to show off my system. I thought it was the best I'd ever had.

Then one day I noticed my favorite CDs collecting dust. I found myself not listening to the system as much. I didn't want to listen to those audiophile recordings because the music itself was ****e. I wasn't sure why I didn't want to listen to my fav rock albums.

The time came to finish the basement, turn it into a dedicated music/movie room, and I sold off the MF Integrated for Rotel MCH separates. The Viennas and Rega stayed for nearly two years and I found myself listening less and less to music.

The Viennas and Rega both leaned towards the sweet/warm side of the sound spectrum. This made them lack the rawness/emotion that the rock music needed.

Gone first were the Viennas for a full Paradigm Reference setup (no comments from RGA please...we all know where you stand). Something was still missing. The only thing remaining from the original system was the Rega. Brought home an Arcam CD73 to demo. Back was the energy and emotion my favorite recordings had been missing! Sure it was more of a neutral sound that exposed the less-than-ideal recording quality but I was listing to the MUSIC again, whole albums at a time, forgetting about the gear for once.

The point of my story is that it's up to you to decide whether or not any difference you can hear between a $2000 & $200 CD player is worth your hard-earned money. It's great that you've got them both there to demo side-by-side. As has already been mentioned, stop using the digital connections and use the analog instead. Listen to your favorite CDs and see what sound you like better.

The difference in CD players is subtle IMO. The biggest impact on the sound of a CD player seems to have to do with the DAC. If you're not hearing a big enough difference to justify the purchase, be glad you saved some money and treat yourself to a few new CDs!

Good Luck!
Bill

[dean_martin]

i have no idea what you guys are talking about...lol

Yeah, jfish, some of the guys did go a little off course. But, the bottom line is it looks like you have been able to compare the Arcam and Sony at home with your own equipment. If you compare RCA output from both machines and can't justify the extra $1000 for the Arcam then that's all there is to it.

However, if you decide against the Arcam, but still have some money to spend on your system, one thing you might try is a 2-channel amp for your main left front and right front speakers. I'm assuming that your Sony es2000 is a home theater receiver since you mentioned using its digital inputs. From what I understand, the Sony processor/preamp section is pretty good, but you might be able to improve on its amplifier section. If you can "borrow" or demo a B&K, Parasound, Aragon, Rotel or some other quality 2-channel amp in your system, then you might detect a bigger difference than you would with the Arcam cd player. Stronger, cleaner power to your speakers (from what I've read the Proacs are pretty good) will make a bigger difference in sound quality, IMO. And, the price you pay for a quality 2-channel amp could be as little as half the cost of the Arcam.