Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 64 of 64
  1. #51
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    85
    from plextor guy "CDP's are in fact obsolete. Way obsolete."

    Sounds just like the young kids at the big box stores and I quote here "Everyone knows that CD's are obsolete and ancient" Apparently any computer will match and surpass any stereo regardless of cost and there much cheaper too. Well I must be the exception as my computer cost plus software just keep going up and up. Still looking for the computer that will last me 20 to 25 years.

    “There is nothing more despicable than someone regurgitating audio hype to newbs if that person knows in his or her heart of hearts that what they are saying is bogus.”

    Well I will agree that it is unacceptable for people to lie, I do not know about your political leaders but most if not all of them lie. However you should prove your statement that these people know that they are misleading the newbies.

    I presently own a Nakamichi TA-4A receiver and a Musical Fidelity A300 integrated amplifier. The preamp section of the A300 surpasses that of the Nak and I would never say night and day difference but there is a difference. Comparing the amplifier section I would not say better but different, the Nakamichi sounds warmer while the A300 sound more analytical. Both sound good but there is a distinct difference and I would have no problem between the two in a DBT.

    As for CD players I believe that they are sounding more alike all the time and they are much better than they have been in the past. Bought my first CD player 6 years ago a model made by Pioneer and I was not impressed at all. In fact it turned me off to CD’s. Then I bought a Pioneer CDR-W839 player/recorder, this was much better than the first player I bought. However again it left something to desire although it makes excellent copies. Hence why I bought the AH CD player. It may be out of many people price range or desire to spend that much on a CD player but I like it much more the Pioneer player recorder.

    Not being an Engineer or technician what I hear is flawed and incorrect from what you are saying. Would have never guessed that every EE builds stereo equipment being that it is such a large field but it is not the first time I have been wrong.

    I have no problem that you may not hear a difference as there are many times I have heard don’t you hear the differences it’s like night and day. Nope, non at all to be honest, gee sir you have terrible ears. So I am forced to live with my flawed ears. I will stand by my belief only spend as much money as you need to, if you cannot hear a difference why would I spend more money. I do set a limit on how much I will spend for any given product. That stupid Chevrolet truck of mine is due for replacement it has gone in price from 1/3 of a house and is now worth less than what my stereo is. Been told if I bought a Ford I would not have this problem, now this is someone stretching the truth.

    Do not know how much equipment you have bought but I am basically on my second main stereo in thirty years. My friend keep telling me that I am one of the lucky ones, except when it came to buying CD players

    Have A Great Day and enjoy the music.

  2. #52
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    102

    nice try..

    I bet it sounds good to the uninitiated though. Shielded toroids (BWAHAHAHA! - good one), integrated vs discreet circiuts, anti resonant transports and so on. All good except none of it necessarily makes a difference. It is after all the human ear that filters everything you hear. To make matters worse, it is the human brain that processes what you hear. Are you saying that your hearing is so acute and your knowldge of what to listen for is so advanced that you could tell the difference between similarly spec'd separates and receiver? Likewise between a ss cdp (insert any brand you wish regardless of cost) and a 300 dollar dvd player? If so you would be the first person on the planet to do so. I do agree speakers make a lot of difference. The most difference along with speaker placement, room accoustics and source material. EVERYTHING else is details. My inability to grasp your definition of high end is not rooted in a lack of understanding. I'm reasonably sure of where you're coming from. Unfortunately it is an unenlightened and dark place. I can only hope that people visiting this site for useful ways to spend their hard earned money on audio product aren't swayed by your lack of enlightenment. You don't yet seem to get that high dollar or elaborate engineering = high-end in modern day parlance. Which isn't to say one shouldn't buy a 'high-end' cdp if you find it esthetically pleasing or otherwise interesting but know what you're buying. Thanks for the shielded toroid reference - good one.

  3. #53
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189

    Dense

    Quote Originally Posted by plextor guy
    I bet it sounds good to the uninitiated though. Shielded toroids (BWAHAHAHA! - good one), integrated vs discreet circiuts, anti resonant transports and so on. All good except none of it necessarily makes a difference.
    It all does...you are simply digging a deep hole of of ignorance around yourself. You have proven how little you know right there. You should have stopped, now you look REALLY stupid.


    It is after all the human ear that filters everything you hear. To make matters worse, it is the human brain that processes what you hear. Are you saying that your hearing is so acute and your knowldge of what to listen for is so advanced that you could tell the difference between similarly spec'd separates and receiver?

    There is no such thing. Japanese manufacturers have lied for years from power output to distortion and drive. There is a big difference between a kenwood reciever that claims 100 wpc and a 100 wpc musical fidelity integrated. Tighter tolerances guaruntee it can drive two channels 20hz-20khz in a linear manner without gross levels of negative feedback.

    Likewise between a ss cdp (insert any brand you wish regardless of cost) and a 300 dollar dvd player? If so you would be the first person on the planet to do so.
    No, you'd be one of the few deaf ignoramus not to.

    I do agree speakers make a lot of difference. The most difference along with speaker placement, room accoustics and source material. EVERYTHING else is details.
    Garbage in= garbage out. A stereo is only as good as it's weakest link. You are the weakest link, so you are voted off the thread. Goodbye.

    My inability to grasp your definition of high end is not rooted in a lack of understanding. I'm reasonably sure of where you're coming from. Unfortunately it is an unenlightened and dark place.
    I have infinately more experiance and knowledge than you in every possible aspect of audio and electronics. I'd say that is very enlightened. They concel information about audio in BOOKS. You should read some.

    I can only hope that people visiting this site for useful ways to spend their hard earned money on audio product aren't swayed by your lack of enlightenment. You don't yet seem to get that high dollar or elaborate engineering = high-end in modern day parlance. Which isn't to say one shouldn't buy a 'high-end' cdp if you find it esthetically pleasing or otherwise interesting but know what you're buying. Thanks for the shielded toroid reference - good one.
    Thanks for being the village idiot. Have you any clue whatsoever that virtually all of the high end, highly reguaded and accurate gear has shielded toroids? Do you have the least F-ing clue what a toroid is? No, you don't. You will have to run and look it up.

    God, you are a dolt.

  4. #54
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    102

    your moniker says it all..

    Sealed. An airtight enclosure. Impervious to outside influence. Nice - if you're a can of soup. Personally I think you ought to change your moniker to 'Shielded Toroid'. Hysterical. Your explanations are weak, expletive laced, hand wringing but most notably you didn't say if you could distinguish between similarly spec'd solid state components, ie integrated vs separates, niche market cdp's and dvd players and so on. No one - ever - has been able to do so. As far as I know and in a controlled environment. So if you can I bow to your golden ears and humbly beg your pardon. If, as I believe, you are just another audiophool, shame on you. Keep reading your books (Robert Harley perhaps?) and adding to your 'infinite' knowledge. In the mean time I hope I've exposed to the newbs reading this just what it is they're up against.

  5. #55
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189

    Moron

    Quote Originally Posted by plextor guy
    Sealed. An airtight enclosure. Impervious to outside influence.
    --Retard...it refers to a infinite baffle design, like you, who is infinitely baffled.

    Nice - if you're a can of soup. Personally I think you ought to change your moniker to 'Shielded Toroid'. Hysterical.
    --You have not a f-ing clue, so it would be hysterical. I am sure you are a point genius when it comes to explaining core saturation, hysterisis, copper loss, ICBO, CEMF and all of the operating parameters of a quality power supply. NOT.

    Your explanations are weak, expletive laced, hand wringing but most notably you didn't say if you could distinguish between similarly spec'd solid state components, ie integrated vs separates, niche market cdp's and dvd players and so on.

    --I can, and I abbreviated the expletives. Everything you said up to this point is common brainless troll BS. I have been quite concrete, you have been trying in vain not to look like a dumbass. You are tap dancing and wording your way around the fact you are lost in this topic and don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. It doesn't work that way. Your act is transparent, and you are obviously a moron.

    No one - ever - has been able to do so.

    --according to your non-existent knowledge. Richard Hardesty, Stereophile, AES, and hundreds of other real sources contradict that.

    As far as I know and in a controlled environment. So if you can I bow to your golden ears and humbly beg your pardon. If, as I believe, you are just another audiophool, shame on you. Keep reading your books (Robert Harley perhaps?) and adding to your 'infinite' knowledge. In the mean time I hope I've exposed to the newbs reading this just what it is they're up against.
    You should be humble,you are too stupid not to be. I have designed and built speakers, modified components, modified speakers, performed alignments and testing that you don't have the ability to comprehend. Newbs are up against retards like you who have no clue. You have strong opinions based on weak knowledge. You have no idea who Vance Dickason, Richard Hardesty, Antony Michealson, Ivor Tefenbaum, or anyone else is for that matter. You need to STFU because you have no knowledge, no facts, and no substantiation of your skewed and dimwitted attitude. You are a mad kid that wasted money on mid-fi junk, can't tell the difference, now wants to proselytize to the whole world that everything sounds the same. That argument is as completely void and vapid as the space between your ears. You could not explain a waterfall plot, Nyquist theory, or interpret FFT results to save your life. You have no idea what I just said just now either. At least when Mtrycrafts argues things like this he has developed his sources to work off. You just pull things out of your ass without any form of fact. You are pathetic. Now go back to your crappy low-fi system and leave us alone.

  6. #56
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    halifax,nova scotia,canada
    Posts
    1,083
    people need to spend less time checking out the spec sheet and listen to the music,after all is it not the most important thing.sometimes you might be suprised.in the past 6 months four disc players have spent time in my system,they range ed in price from 350-950 dollars cdn.they could play dvd-v,dvd-a,sacd,and redbook in various combinations.as redbook was the only thing they did in common it was the best comparison.which was best was subjective,but they were all clearly different.everything in the system was identical and i used the same music to make comparisions.people should try this type of test before jumping to conclusions.

  7. #57
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by happy ears
    If you cannot afford the upscale models I fully understand, as I have been there myself. Unwilling to pay for the next model up I also understand. If you do not hear any difference there is no need to waste your money. But when you start telling me what I can hear and how much to spend it is a totally different story. Still think that everything costs twice as much as it should and I only make half as much money as I'm worth.
    Well said.

  8. #58
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by happy ears
    "Yes, you may be very careful. Did you check the level differences, to .1dB? At 1kHz? 10kHz?
    If not, how do you know one wasn't louder?"

    Mtrycraft are telling me you can tell the difference of +/- 0.1 dB. That's a pretty small difference. I would have to agree with those that say louder is not always better.

    Sorry for this late post which I just saw

    No, that is not what I am saying at all. That is the necessary level to match it so there is no chance of detection level difference caused differences.
    Test tones can be detected at about .2dB spl difference, or if the difference is over a broad spectrum.

    http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_crit.htm

    You would not use a voltmeter to measure at its threshold, right? It would not be accurate or reliable. You need to use a better meter.

    again, I didn't say louder is better, you just detect it better and select that player. Human nature, unless you are an expert, well trained on this. Audiophiles are not.
    mtrycrafts

  9. #59
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by plextor guy
    Are you saying that your hearing is so acute and your knowldge of what to listen for is so advanced that you could tell the difference between similarly spec'd separates and receiver? Likewise between a ss cdp (insert any brand you wish regardless of cost) and a 300 dollar dvd player? If so you would be the first person on the planet to do so. I do agree speakers make a lot of difference. The most difference along with speaker placement, room accoustics and source material. EVERYTHING else is details. .
    On the separates and receiver, yes. I'm not sure when Sealed first did so but there were three others with me when I did so perhaps all together we're the first 5 people on the planet to do so. This was done with preamps and the preamp section of a receiver. On power amps, we didn't do so well.

    On CDP's the only difference I could hear among similarly spec'd players was by way of the headphone output jack and there may be other explanations for those diffs... the quality of the headphone jack, perhaps. Even so, they were minute differences and not worth the money.

    I agree with your speakers, room acoustics and source material comment. But the details in everything else can be important also as a finishing touch.

  10. #60
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    23

    Still, there's a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    On the separates and receiver, yes. I'm not sure when Sealed first did so but there were three others with me when I did so perhaps all together we're the first 5 people on the planet to do so. This was done with preamps and the preamp section of a receiver. On power amps, we didn't do so well.

    On CDP's the only difference I could hear among similarly spec'd players was by way of the headphone output jack and there may be other explanations for those diffs... the quality of the headphone jack, perhaps. Even so, they were minute differences and not worth the money.

    I agree with your speakers, room acoustics and source material comment. But the details in everything else can be important also as a finishing touch.
    I own 4 CD players and there's quite a bit of difference between all of them. If you really want to discern it, you need to take room/ speakers out of the equation so all that's needed is a good pair of headphones (even the Grado SR60 s would fit the bill quite nicely) and a nice pre/amp or headphone amp.
    Some of the things I found over years:
    1. Some CD players will extract more details than others even with carefully matched levels (easy to do with just a basic multi meter).
    2. Some CD players will get "congested" or harsh during loud, busy or trebly passages. A good tune to check for this is Pink Floyd's "One of my Turns" on The Wall.
    3. Some CD players will cause listening fatigue in as little as 30 minutes at a moderate (or normal) level. Some others will go a little louder even for prolongued listening sessions with no fatigue whatsoever.
    4. I tend to dislike bitstream machines mainly because of point # 3.
    5. Some CD players tend to have different tonal characters depending on their output stage but tubes aren't neccessarely better than solid state or viceversa. Sometimes you can use some EQ to compensate for this however for headphones use this should not be neccessary.
    6. Higher priced CD players aren't neccessarely better. I've auditioned awfull expensive ones and pretty good sounding cheap ones. However there are a few expensive faboulous sounding players that none of the good cheap crowd can't match playback quality wise. As a corrolary I never heard any unit at $300 or under that I liked except for second hand ones and that includes DVD players as well.
    7. As aresult of #6, your favourite's audio dealer second hand /trade in shelf is your best friend.

    That's all I can think of now...

    Peace!

  11. #61
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326

    Very good observation

    Quote Originally Posted by Poss
    I own 4 CD players and there's quite a bit of difference between all of them. If you really want to discern it, you need to take room/ speakers out of the equation so all that's needed is a good pair of headphones (even the Grado SR60 s would fit the bill quite nicely) and a nice pre/amp or headphone amp.
    Some of the things I found over years:
    1. Some CD players will extract more details than others even with carefully matched levels (easy to do with just a basic multi meter).
    2. Some CD players will get "congested" or harsh during loud, busy or trebly passages. A good tune to check for this is Pink Floyd's "One of my Turns" on The Wall.
    3. Some CD players will cause listening fatigue in as little as 30 minutes at a moderate (or normal) level. Some others will go a little louder even for prolongued listening sessions with no fatigue whatsoever.
    4. I tend to dislike bitstream machines mainly because of point # 3.
    5. Some CD players tend to have different tonal characters depending on their output stage but tubes aren't neccessarely better than solid state or viceversa. Sometimes you can use some EQ to compensate for this however for headphones use this should not be neccessary.
    6. Higher priced CD players aren't neccessarely better. I've auditioned awfull expensive ones and pretty good sounding cheap ones. However there are a few expensive faboulous sounding players that none of the good cheap crowd can't match playback quality wise. As a corrolary I never heard any unit at $300 or under that I liked except for second hand ones and that includes DVD players as well.
    7. As aresult of #6, your favourite's audio dealer second hand /trade in shelf is your best friend.

    That's all I can think of now...

    Peace!
    One of the major things that seperates good from better CD players is how they handle complex passages. Massed strings are a good test, but also complex layered rock is very hard to decode well. The early CD players were notoriously bad at this, but now even some of the cheaper ones are good, but not great.

    Congested is a good word for it. To me it sounds grating , like the waveform is truncated as the player tries to do more than it can. As you've noted, the best player are the best at avoiding this harshness, and to me it is the real big difference between quality CD players, and the rest.

    You've really got to spend some time with the player to really get to know them too. I like the fact that you have four players to compare with. To me it makes your observations much more reliable than if you had just heard them in a demo room, where time constraints are a major factor in the comparison. I was lucky in that I got to borrow several CD player at length before I made my decision.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  12. #62
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    23

    Not all old CD players are bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    One of the major things that seperates good from better CD players is how they handle complex passages. Massed strings are a good test, but also complex layered rock is very hard to decode well. The early CD players were notoriously bad at this, but now even some of the cheaper ones are good, but not great.
    One of the machines I own is a Nak OMS1 made in 1986 picked up used but in pristine condition at Cash Converters for 60 Can$. Most "audiophile" people would scoff at this rather basic unit (hey I used to be just like that once) but its 16bit 8X oversampling filter wipes the floor thorougly quality wise with Marantz CD63SE's bitstream implementation. It's cleaner, with more detail and handles busy passages with more poise than the CD63SE. So if the Marrantz was once a Class C Stereophile component, the Nak is deffinitely a B class by the same yardstick. The reality is different of course. The Marrantz got a lot of good press I'm not quite sure why... It's a nice, bold sounding and quite musical player but loses steam quickly on complex musical passages.

    So for the original poster, the best under $1k unit would be a previously loved $2k unit. At least for me it would.

    Peace!

  13. #63
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326

    I didn't mean all of them

    Quote Originally Posted by Poss
    One of the machines I own is a Nak OMS1 made in 1986 picked up used but in pristine condition at Cash Converters for 60 Can$. Most "audiophile" people would scoff at this rather basic unit (hey I used to be just like that once) but its 16bit 8X oversampling filter wipes the floor thorougly quality wise with Marantz CD63SE's bitstream implementation. It's cleaner, with more detail and handles busy passages with more poise than the CD63SE. So if the Marrantz was once a Class C Stereophile component, the Nak is deffinitely a B class by the same yardstick. The reality is different of course. The Marrantz got a lot of good press I'm not quite sure why... It's a nice, bold sounding and quite musical player but loses steam quickly on complex musical passages.

    So for the original poster, the best under $1k unit would be a previously loved $2k unit. At least for me it would.

    Peace!
    Just most of the early CD players sounded terrible. The're were a few notable exception, PS Audio Lambda with seperate DAC being one, the McCormack Mod Squad being another of the vintage players that I've heard.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  14. #64
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Motherwell, Scotland
    Posts
    18
    Jeeze, I wish I had read Skeptic and MTRYCRAFT's take on CD players and music reproduction systems and cars before I bought my gear. If I had known that there was absolutly no difference between the cheap Sony plastic brick and the expensive Arcam metalic behemoth, I would have bought the Sony, fortuneately I had never heard of either of these guys and bought the right one, you guys ears must be painted on if you can't hear the difference between these radically different spinners, resolution, detail & dynamics are either there or they are not, no amount of tweaking will make the Sony sound similar to the Arcam.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ah! Njoe Tjoeb CD Player
    By NJ_Richard in forum General Audio
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-19-2004, 06:16 AM
  2. Anyone try Philips 727 DVD player?
    By PmR in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-26-2004, 09:45 PM
  3. Anyone using XBOX as a DVD player?
    By RGA in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-22-2003, 11:01 AM
  4. Looking for new CD player...
    By Invader3k in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-21-2003, 05:33 PM
  5. Xbox vs. PS2 as a dvd player and game system
    By IRG in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-10-2003, 11:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •