$1200 vs $200 cd players

[jfish]

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

[N. Abstentia]

If you're using the digital coax connection, there will be NO difference in the sound. By doing that you're bypassing all the analog stages in the player and using it merely as a transport.

[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.

[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.

[theaudiohobby]

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

Compare the arcam to the Sony through the RCA outputs and see which one you prefer, I cannot see the Sony sounding better than Arcam through the analog (RCA outputs) but stranger things have happened. However a good test is to see if the Sony sounds better through the digital outputs than the Arcam through the RCA outputs. You should only keep it if it is better than the Sony under both circumstances. Pay attention to the high frequencies and the instrument separation.

[jfish]

Compare the arcam to the Sony through the RCA outputs and see which one you prefer, I cannot see the Sony sounding better than Arcam through the analog (RCA outputs) but stranger things have happened. However a good test is to see if the Sony sounds better through the digital outputs than the Arcam through the RCA outputs. You should only keep it if it is better than the Sony under both circumstances. Pay attention to the high frequencies and the instrument separation.

only slightly differnet, i think my sony es digital amp is so "sterile" sounding, any change in imaging is lost....the amp makes everything really clear and sharp, nothing warm or tube-like about it....still sounds good w/ the small proacs & sub. i sent the cd player back.....i was expecting the sky to open up and golden notes for shoot frrom the speakers..

[theaudiohobby]

...i was expecting the sky to open up and golden notes to shoot from the speakers..

[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]

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.