What makes one CD player perform better then the other?

[gypsyhick]

Ok...While there has been some interesting bantering going on, the answer I'm looking for has yet to be posted. It appears I need to better explain myself. I don't seek validation. I can't buy one. I'm just curious and don't - at the moment - have time to listen to these expensive CD players. What I am looking for, in essence, is the champion of the 2k CD player. That lucky soul who has no hesitation dropping an impressive load of cash on equipment. I don't want sarcasm. I want a pendantic reply to the kin of wine snobbery.

Cheers,

GH

[Poss]

Ok... I don't want sarcasm. I want a pendantic reply to the kin of wine snobbery.

Cheers,

GH

It's a bit (a little pun intended) late and I'm too tired for an absolute "pedantic" reply. The cold reality is there are $2k players out there which are probably worth less than half of that sonically. One example : Linn Genki. I was so thoroughly unimpressed by its performance it was not funny. It is certainly better than my 700Can$ Rotel RCD950 however not $1800 better by any stretch of imagination. But just because it is Linn the press loves it (as it also inexplicably loves the LP12) therefore those Scots see fit to charge a hefty premium for the privilege of owning one. One of my friends took the 2500Can$ plunge and he absolutely loves the thing. He probably has to...

Rotel used to have a better engineered product (actually two the 990 and 991) who had textbook benchmark performance and superior sound for significantly less cash. Unfortunatelly they were too expensive for a Rotel, they caught some so-so reviews (Sam Tellig even called the 991 an overcooked 971; I wonder if he ever gave it a serious listen) sold poorly and subsequently got cancelled. That's bussiness... (Anyone there willing to sell me one of those puppies second hand? No? I thought so...).

And there's the CD player that DESERVED every one of those no less than 840000 pennies the today defunct Sonic Frontiers asked for, the SF1. Flooring, drop dead gorgeous sonic performance, ear candy at its best. Took one home to see how it will fit along all my other junk and the day I realised I couldn't possibly afford it is one that remains forever marked as a the "$%ck my puny salary day" in my calendar. Well now I could maybe get a second mortgage on my house and afford it but (as with the Rotel 990 or 991) all the owners that were insane enough to plunk the cash for one are seemingly not insane enough to part with it.

Anyway... If you agree that better engineering gives you better results, you're halfway there. Price however DOES NOT always reflect that. In Rotel's case they were probably not making enough profit on it to break even and that's because this company refuses (or at least refused) to gouge their customers and pretty much like most "middle end" manufacturers out there (the likes of Cambridge, Arcam and so on) they engineer a product and then set a price, contrary to other companies that first set a price, then a profit and the rest is left for engineering/ manufacturing.

The cost of tooling alone for a specialty product that will sell in small numbers is VERY significant and it is adding up to the one you pay for better parts (ever checked the price on high quality, beefy capacitors lately? or the price on NOS tubes?). Manually pairing a set of op-amps within 0.5dB isn't particulary cheap either. Some of those will reap sonic benefits, some will not but all of them contribute to the higher price a better engineered product usually commends. It is a little difficult to sepparate which companies are charging for just air from the ones that don't. Actually scrap that. It is actually easy if you own a decent headphone amp and a pair of good headphones. A short but thorough listening session will quickly sepparate the wheat from the chaff and if it is not, you can SAFELY save yourself quite a bit of dough. Make no mistake though: there IS a difference in sonic character even between $200 players and if you cannot hear it, you should deffinitely be happy.

I'm not sarcastic or "golden eared" or arrogant and if it appears so I sincerely apologize as it is completely unintentional. Hearing those differences is a curse really. It makes one lust over stuff that one could hardly afford. It makes one bring a small amp, a nice CD player and a pair of Grados to the office because that one cannot bear the sound of his CAD workstation's DVD unit. You know... it makes one do weird stuff...

I'm not quite sure how all this will help you. It is however my personal first hand experience, take it for what is worth.

Peace!

[Mark of Cenla]

This is my first post on this website. There have been many good points made about this topic. I do know that there are valid sonic differences between CD players. In all audio gear, the higher the price, the more one pays for smaller improvements in sound. As someone said above, you have to decide if paying much more for a small improvement is worth it to you.

Only an engineer (or someone very learned about electronics) can explain WHY one sounds better than another. Some of the factors may include power supply, digital to analog converters, internal preamp quality. All of these affect the sound. Just using higher quality capacitors, diodes, etc. can also make a difference.

I have two components that will play CD's: a Sony DVP-NS315 (DVD player)and a TEAC RW-D200 (double deck CD recorder). The TEAC is the CD player in my bedroom system because it is more convenient to record there than in the living room. But I did once compare them on the main system in the living room. The TEAC had better bass and more overall richness. There is a difference, but I cannot explain why. Peace.

[nightflier]

[QUOTE=gypsyhick]...I can't buy one. I'm just curious and don't - at the moment - have time to listen to these expensive CD player... [QUOTE]

I also didn't have the money for an expensive player, so I went and compared the less expensive ones: Sony, Philips, Samsung, Onkyo, a couple of units I borrowed from friends (including an Ah!NjoeTjoeb!), and a few other usual suspects. We also didn't have expensive testing equipment either (my trusty RadioShack dB meter, was about it). So here are some of the non-scientific steps I took:

- I'm a big believer in the idea that bigger/heavier is better, so I weighed each player I tested.
- I also don't care for lots of plastic parts, wobbly gears, and rubber doohickies, so that was a factor, too.
- I've always believed that mechanical devices will fail some day, so the way in which the disk tray openened and closed, the feel of the buttons and the quality of the remote were factors too.
- When possible, I opened each unit and took a peak inside. Checked out the size of the capacitors, whether any patch jobs were performed on the circuit boards, and considered the layout.
- I also played CD's with the volume muted to see how much noise the player made on it's own.
- And then I played some of my favorite CD's and did the usual tests, including DB....

In the end, Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic were out and I bought a second-hand CD player from Cambridge Audio. I don't recommend doing this, but I bought this from a friend who I could trust. That said, Cambridge Audio definitely makes some excellent & affordable audio equipment (I now also have an Azur 540A), albeit not the least expensive choice. In short, I put a lot of stock in the construction of the player, something people often overlook in favor of blue LED's, flashy names, chrone finish, unrealistic specs, etc.

P.S. I also use the inexpensive / common-sense tweaks that people have suggested online that have made a noticeable difference: cleaning the interconnects and tightening the grip on the cables, weighing down the player a bit to stabilize it, keeping things clean, and using a good power source. None of these raised the cost, but I would guess the player compares to a much more expensive model, now.