$1200 vs $200 cd players

[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.

[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]

. 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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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/