$1200 vs $200 cd players

[RobotCzar]

Dear jfish,

Despite what you may hear from faith-based audio fans, there is no logical reason that you would hear any difference. There also is no evidence that anybody can, despite a spate of claims from those who do not take proper time to do controlled listening.

Funny how many of them recommend "just listen and decide" and then find that you made some kind of mistake. Don't believe them--ask them for evidence, not theories.

An expenisive player is likely to last longer (but you can't be sure). They do not "sound" different--let alone "better"; and even if they did, many other factors (that don't cost a lot of money) matter much more in determining the accuracy and realism of what you hear. Find out more, but beware as this business is full of misinformation.

[DMK]

Dear jfish,

Despite what you may hear from faith-based audio fans, there is no logical reason that you would hear any difference. There also is no evidence that anybody can, despite a spate of claims from those who do not take proper time to do controlled listening.

Funny how many of them recommend "just listen and decide" and then find that you made some kind of mistake. Don't believe them--ask them for evidence, not theories.

An expenisive player is likely to last longer (but you can't be sure). They do not "sound" different--let alone "better"; and even if they did, many other factors (that don't cost a lot of money) matter much more in determining the accuracy and realism of what you hear. Find out more, but beware as this business is full of misinformation.

First, you neglected to mention that this "evidence" that you're looking for is multiple trials of blind tests, peer reviewed, some sort of AES paper that goes into multitudes upon oodles of detail and having the blind test replicated by 62 other people over two years time (exaggeration button now turned off). You and I have had this discussion before and I'll ask you again: Who would want to go through all that to satisfy YOU? Or anyone else, for that matter?

Second, an expensive player usually does last longer because I'm sure gonna spend a reasonable amount of bucks to fix the thing whereas I'm scrapping a $100 player when it develops a bugaboo. Heh, heh - makes sense, no?

Last, the Audio Note DAC I listened to was so different, your deaf granny could have heard the difference from 50 yards away! Oops, there goes that danged exaggeration button, but seriously, it was quite noticeable. This may, however, speak to the DAC's deviation from measured accuracy i.e it may have been designed to sound euphonic. You are aware of such possibilities but you failed to mention that to the original poster.

" many other factors (that don't cost a lot of money) matter much more in determining the accuracy and realism of what you hear. "

You've hit the mark squarely with this. I couldn't agree more.

[RGA]

DMK Re: the DAC has nothing to do with euphonics. There is no measurable evidence to that effect. I do agree that the DAC is easily noticeably different which is why I added my thought to this thread and got everyone all upset. Why I don't know since it was merely a stated opinion of something I heard between two units(and I slammed no other companies??).

The output stage of a cd player acts as a pre-preamplifier. So if all cd players are the same then all amplification devices must be the same thus connect your 1970 Yorx boom box up to anything and it will sound identical to Krell monoblocks. Hi fi choice listens in blind level matched sessions with several listeners - it is more valid to a real environment than a testing environment - the pseudo scientist simply don't know anything about psychology and they overshoot their conclusions - but you won;t convince them so who cares.

Yes you can deliberately MAKE something sound different - i had that experience with the original Rega Planet. I think you could make a good case with the AN DACs at least from a theoretical perspective that they are adding the LEAST to the signal. No treble smoothing, no digital brickwall filters, no noise shaping smoothing oversampling etc. "Convention says the measurements matter. But Audio Note says, ‘What’s the point of using trickery to remove distortion that you can’t hear if, in doing so, you suck the joy and life from recordings?’"

This may give you more information on the design - with folow-ups at the bottom. That word microdynamics - seems like such a small thing - it's not. http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr...3690&read&3&4&

The AN DAC design from the designer Andy Grove http://audionotekits.espyderweb.net/agrovedac.html
Interestingly Andy Grove has been snapped up by Quad as designer back in 1999 - but apparently also still works with Audio Note. Hmm those European companies seem less competitive with each other when they're all going out for beers and trading trade secrets?? Interesting business community

[theaudiohobby]

DMK Re: the DAC has nothing to do with euphonics. There is no measurable evidence to that effect. I do agree that the DAC is easily noticeably different which is why I added my thought to this thread and got everyone all upset.

It does have to do with euphonics and measurable differences RGA, the DAC3 .1 was measured by Noel Keywood of Hi-fi World and was found to be severely rolled off in both the lowest and highest frequencies amongst other things, IIRC it had almost no output >16KHz.

[RGA]

It does have to do with euphonics and measurable differences RGA, the DAC3 .1 was measured by Noel Keywood of Hi-fi World and was found to be severely rolled off in both the lowest and highest frequencies amongst other things, IIRC it had almost no output >16KHz.

LOL.

[DMK]

DMK Re: the DAC has nothing to do with euphonics. There is no measurable evidence to that effect. I do agree that the DAC is easily noticeably different which is why I added my thought to this thread and got everyone all upset. Why I don't know since it was merely a stated opinion of something I heard between two units(and I slammed no other companies??).

The output stage of a cd player acts as a pre-preamplifier. So if all cd players are the same then all amplification devices must be the same thus connect your 1970 Yorx boom box up to anything and it will sound identical to Krell monoblocks. Hi fi choice listens in blind level matched sessions with several listeners - it is more valid to a real environment than a testing environment - the pseudo scientist simply don't know anything about psychology and they overshoot their conclusions - but you won;t convince them so who cares.

Yes you can deliberately MAKE something sound different - i had that experience with the original Rega Planet. I think you could make a good case with the AN DACs at least from a theoretical perspective that they are adding the LEAST to the signal. No treble smoothing, no digital brickwall filters, no noise shaping smoothing oversampling etc. "Convention says the measurements matter. But Audio Note says, ‘What’s the point of using trickery to remove distortion that you can’t hear if, in doing so, you suck the joy and life from recordings?’"

This may give you more information on the design - with folow-ups at the bottom. That word microdynamics - seems like such a small thing - it's not. http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr...3690&read&3&4&

The AN DAC design from the designer Andy Grove http://audionotekits.espyderweb.net/agrovedac.html
Interestingly Andy Grove has been snapped up by Quad as designer back in 1999 - but apparently also still works with Audio Note. Hmm those European companies seem less competitive with each other when they're all going out for beers and trading trade secrets?? Interesting business community

I suppose in a way the Audio Hobby would be correct in that if the DAC 3.1 rolls off the lows and especially the highs, it could be considered euphonic (since certainly some of the sonic problems with CD's are in the high treble - although I have more issues with the upper mids and lower treble) but I think of euphonic more in the sense of certain tube designs (not by any means ALL of them) as adding 2nd order, or pleasing, distortion. Haven't seen the measurements so I don't know. What I do know is that I don't care! As you said, there are no transparent audio components. I use tubed amps and prefer LP's, both of which are said to add distortion. Interestingly, my tube amps measure only very slightly more distorted at half power than solid state amps - so slight that it's considered under the JND threshold. And with 103 db sensitive speakers, my 25 watt amps rarely if ever are pushed beyond a watt or two. Anyway, my point is that my audio interest lies not in measurements but in actual usage = in their sonic performance. Audio isn't nearly the hobby for me that listening to music in the home is. Whatever components get me closer to the live event are what I strive to find. The Audio Note I heard does that better than any other CD player. I wish I could afford it... along with the $8K Wyetech Opal preamp and the $8K Wyetech Topaz power amp! I'll just have to make do with what I have for now.

Have you heard all the Audio Note DAC's? I don't have an opportunity to but how do the 1.1 or 2.1 compare to their upper echelon dacs? Perhaps I could buy a cheaper one and still get superior sound, if a bit less refined.

I also find it interesting that both you and I like the Audio Note DAC's and the Sugden integrated. I'd have to describe the sonic signature of both to be in the same league. So much for the "all this stuff sounds alike" crowd. A friend of mine just bought the A21A and I swear that if I had heard it before I bought my tubed pre and tubed monoblocks, I'd have bought the Sugden to save money. So, so close in sound.

[theaudiohobby]

...if the DAC 3.1 rolls off the lows and especially the highs, it could be considered euphonic...Haven't seen the measurements so I don't know. What I do know is that I don't care

The point I am trying to make precisely , however it is incredulous to suggest that such products are more transparent or accurate than other products on this basis, since the only way a subjective opinion can make that call is by comparing the actual playback directly to the master tapes or even better the actual recorded live performance .

[RGA]

The point I am trying to make precisely , however it is incredulous to suggest that such products are more transparent or accurate than other products on this basis, since the only way a subjective opinion can make that call is by comparing the actual playback directly to the master tapes or even better the actual recorded live performance .

But if you bothered to read Audio Hell what you are saying is EXACTLY what Peter Q said.

[theaudiohobby]

But if you bothered to read Audio Hell what you are saying is EXACTLY what Peter Q said.

The crux of the matter is when I audition audio gear, I listen for positive differences i.e increased resolution, refinement, soundstaging etc and not similarities, I also listen to a variety of recordings across various genres in an attempt to assess performance over a variety of styles. I do not expect Bach to sound the similar Third Day, nor do I expect Louis Armstrong to sound the similar to Eva Cassidy. Neither do I expect a jazz cafe recording to sound similar to a studio or concert hall recording. How well the said component renders the recordings in their given context gives a clue to the performance of the component(s) in question. Strictly speaking I do not know anyone who sets about on an upgrade quest and looks for a component that sounds exactly the same as the component they are looking to upgrade from, why bother in that? 'Comparison by contrast (i.e. qualitative differences)' is the way any rational person goes about the upgrade process.However, In a different scenario, a person may be seeking to replace an existing well-regarded or treasured but discontinued component, in which case the goal of the individual is to replace their well regarded component with a similar sounding component and therefore they will be listening for similarities not differences. Any person setting about an audition would be wise to assemble a wide variety of recordings across a large selection of genres in order to properly evaluate performance, though I wonder how anybody could possibly reliably evaluate any rig with unfamiliar recordings, but each to his own!

You keep getting your knickers in a twist, because you are trying, rather unsuccessfully I may add, to draw an ambigous relationship between your sonic preferences and actual technical superiority of various audio components. You can like what you like, but you are in uncharted territory when you start using that as a basis to argue for the technical superiority of any component. As an aside, high frequency glare seized to be an issue in my rig many many moons ago and I am sure that I am much further down the road of audio satisfaction than you are, but I still experiment and pleasantly surprise myself sometimes even followed some of PQ's advice on one occasion, something that I think you are still skeptical about, biwiring, have you biwired your J's yet? I doubt it . Personally, I refuse to approach audio or any other area for that matter with a closed mind .

[DMK]

The point I am trying to make precisely , however it is incredulous to suggest that such products are more transparent or accurate than other products on this basis, since the only way a subjective opinion can make that call is by comparing the actual playback directly to the master tapes or even better the actual recorded live performance .

Absolutely agree, which is why I "try" never to use words like transparent or accurate and prefer words like believable and phrases like "true to my preconception of the live event".

I've had the good fortune to listen closely to three master tapes and the resultant CD's. Sadly, there is a HUGE difference. The RE's in question have always blamed the limitations of the CD medium, a format that supposedly HAS no limitations. I'd perhaps blame their skill if I didn't know better. They all agree; SACD is truest to the master tape, next comes CD and lastly the LP. However, they all also agree that while the LP deviates more than the CD, what the CD adds in the way of distortion (that stuff that measurements tell us the CD medium is devoid of - haha!) is much more discordant while the LP is more "musical". Oh, there's that word again! Sorry.

The problem with comparisons to the live event is usually the length of time between said event and the recording playback. The mind forgets. However, on a few occasions I've noticed some horrible sonic anomalies that, if they had been present while I was at the concert, I couldn't have helped but notice.

Transparency among components? Let's find transparency in recording first. The cart before the horse makes for a well built cart that doesn't go anywhere AND is content with its destination.

[musicoverall]

what the CD adds in the way of distortion (that stuff that measurements tell us the CD medium is devoid of - haha!) is much more discordant while the LP is more "musical".

The fact that we've apparently not uncovered all the distortions that CD's present leads me to be more staunch in my belief that measurements in audio have a way to go before they will tell the entire story of why things sound as they do.

[Feanor]

The point I am trying to make precisely , however it is incredulous to suggest that such products are more transparent or accurate than other products on this basis, since the only way a subjective opinion can make that call is by comparing the actual playback directly to the master tapes or even better the actual recorded live performance .

I don't have a problem using accurate. A truly "accurate" reproduction should be indistinguishable from the master played through the recording engineer's reference system. Otherwise master-to-recording comparison only establishes the record medium's accuracy, not the system components' accuracy. And the master has nothing to do with the actual live performance. In most case what the recording engineer intended to record as little to do with what the live performance might have sounded like to someone sitting in the recording studio. (Too bad maybe.)

Most of us will never get the chance to compare masters to distribution media on the RE's equipment or our own for that matter. So we have to go by our recollection of live instruments and voices. If one component typically reproduces this sound more naturally than another, then it perhaps can be said to be relatively "accurate".

Consider that it's possible that the majority of recordings are in some way biased towards some particular, unrealistic sound. In the case of classical music at least, I believe such a bias does exist. It is for a too close-up sound, (resulting from too-close micing of the instruments), that isn't really like an audience member would hear in typical venue. Still, if one is familiar with the close-up sound, one can take this into consideration when evaluating the recording and component accuracy.

[theaudiohobby]

I don't have a problem using accurate. A truly "accurate" reproduction should be indistinguishable from the master played through the recording engineer's reference system. Otherwise master-to-recording comparison only establishes the record medium's accuracy, not the system components' accuracy. And the master has nothing to do with the actual live performance. In most case what the recording engineer intended to record as little to do with what the live performance might have sounded like to someone sitting in the recording studio. (Too bad maybe.)

Consider that it's possible that the majority of recordings are in some way biased towards some particular, unrealistic sound. In the case of classical music at least, I believe such a bias does exist. It is for a too close-up sound, (resulting from too-close micing of the instruments), that isn't really like an audience member would hear in typical venue. Still, if one is familiar with the close-up sound, one can take this into consideration when evaluating the recording and component accuracy.

I think you have just added weight to the big controversy amongst various enthusiasts in the audio industry. Whose perspective is more natural? The guy who likes a nearfield perspective or the guy who prefers a farfield perspective. Both perspectives can be captured by the recording engineer, the choice of perspective to capture is down to the artistic perferences of the RE. This dovetails to my original premise 'a believable reproduction of actual instruments if that was what was captured on the recording.' I largely agree with you that the master may not sound like the live performance at all, but that is the artistic perogative of the RE and the musicians and argueably some masters are the better for that artistic perogative. In conclusion, if the playback equipment does not accurately represent the recording, it cannot be described as accurate.

[RGA]

I suppose in a way the Audio Hobby would be correct in that if the DAC 3.1 rolls off the lows and especially the highs, it could be considered euphonic (since certainly some of the sonic problems with CD's are in the high treble - although I have more issues with the upper mids and lower treble) but I think of euphonic more in the sense of certain tube designs (not by any means ALL of them) as adding 2nd order, or pleasing, distortion. Haven't seen the measurements so I don't know. What I do know is that I don't care! As you said, there are no transparent audio components. I use tubed amps and prefer LP's, both of which are said to add distortion. Interestingly, my tube amps measure only very slightly more distorted at half power than solid state amps - so slight that it's considered under the JND threshold. And with 103 db sensitive speakers, my 25 watt amps rarely if ever are pushed beyond a watt or two. Anyway, my point is that my audio interest lies not in measurements but in actual usage = in their sonic performance. Audio isn't nearly the hobby for me that listening to music in the home is. Whatever components get me closer to the live event are what I strive to find. The Audio Note I heard does that better than any other CD player. I wish I could afford it... along with the $8K Wyetech Opal preamp and the $8K Wyetech Topaz power amp! I'll just have to make do with what I have for now.

i have heard the 3.1 one box player and I've only heard it in an all audio note system. Remember they design the entire chain - how a unit does in a review outside an all audio note chain or how it sounds I don't know. These players have strange mismatch output to input impedences(which will affect treble and bass always first). Still even if one is to say there is a rolloff at 16khz - umm why would anyone care - after the age of about 25 and male you can't hear past 15khz anyway - almost no musical energy is above 15khz to start with. The measurements i've seen of new models have no such frequency anomolies - trouble is that like most Audio note gear as Lynn Olsen noted on the SET amps testing with pink noise and test bench and with a real speaker load are not the same - so of all the amplifiers he owned the Ongaku measured by far the worst in THD and power measurements but was also by far the truest to the music(which means the most accurate to the music). It CERTAINLY isn't the most accurate to the measurement - so one can take that two ways - one is to say well this is a music listening issue so the one that does the best job at presenting the music is the most accurate piece - or you can choose the one that does the best on a test bench - frankly I don't care because I don't think the Audio Hobby are looking at it from the same angle. No big deal. I take the real world listening performance and he takes it from the test bench. The science is suppose to be there ONLY to support the real world listening experience - if it doesn't match up then you have to look at the validity of what it is you're measuring.

I get what is said here - the Teac player had more high frequency glare than the AN CD player - but there was no hacked off rolled of voiolins or cymbals - what was taken away was the fake spitty grain that was there in the teac. So what I would be looking for is okay of the music "energy" only goes to 15khz - then what is the TEAC "ADDING" to the music to get to 20khz? It certainly wan't music it was noise - and this was a very very good $400.00Cdn cd player. Why is it the AN Dac has a three dimensional soundstage and a clearer sound in the midrange where i could hear and follow brish strokes far better. All the subjective evaluation talk of HEARING MORE of the musical information through it - except some earlier DACs which had some issues.

Again it's the context of an all AN system and that was the designers intent.

[musicoverall]

[QUOTE=RGA] The science is suppose to be there ONLY to support the real world listening experience - if it doesn't match up then you have to look at the validity of what it is you're measuring. QUOTE]

Or the validity of HOW you're measuring it!

I think measurements dictate certain parameters in audio gear. But I can't imagine being so blinded as to believe we've discovered everything that makes gear sound as it does. If we had, we'd understand why amps and preamps that measure essentially the same actually sound different.