What makes one CD player perform better then the other?

[woodman]

... go out and by a $100 DVD player and send the extra $1900 to Africa to feed starving children. You will sleep better at night.

Amen. That's one of the BEST bits of advice I've ever seen here at A-R in all of the years I've been coming here!

[Poss]

Tr,
Will let you know the outcome on the Analog Forum once my new turntable mat arrives. Can't wait as you know the stock felt mat is constantly holding a static charge.

Hi Slbenz.
You know, cork mats used for construction floor soundproofing make excellent TT mats. The stuff sells at Home Depot for just a few bucks a sheet. All you have to do is cut it nicely round and drill a .281" hole in the center (15 minutes worth of work). Use a record clamp to keep everything nicely flat (the plastic Clearaudio works quite well) and you'll be amazed at the difference it makes.
One word of caution though. This cork sheet is about 1/8" thick so you may need to readjust the arm height a little.
The cork mat provides both better "traction" and superior static dissipation, not to mention excellent vibration damping/ noise absorption.

Peace!

[Beckman]

The whole concept of sonic differences in CDP's bothers me. The reason is that many years ago I went through the blind testing routine - and sold my Theta separates, bought a cheap CDP and spent the diff on vinyl!

However, since that time (with some baiting) I did some minor testing through the headphone jacks of two players I had on hand, the Sony XA20-ES (my current reference) and a Pioneer PDR-509 recorder. Through the headphone jacks, there were sonic differences. Could be the jacks, I suppose. The Sony is one I like because it navigates any CD and that is the biggest sonic difference I've heard! Most players I've experienced go nuts trying to play a lot of my CD's but the Sony sails through.

Further, I've recently heard some digital gear that sounds quite different, notably the Audio Note Dac 2.1 with no digital filters or oversampling. This piece sounds not only different than the Sony, but better. My guess is that is measures like a piece of dog turd as a result. But the difference thing bothers me because while the transport either reads a CD or doesn't, the analog section of the DAC should reveal differences between players, in my mind. On sighted listening, some do, some don't. I don't care to try blind testing again, however.

Did you us the headphone jack on your players or a headphone jack on your preamp?

I used a headphone jack on my integrated amplifier (Myryad Z140). When I did the comparison I listened for obvious changes in the detail, and soundstage, not changes. in tone. So my comparison was flawed, I think idealy one would A+B switch between two cdp's plugged into the same amplifier. I don't plan on buying anything other than speakers to improve the sound quality of my system in the future (or maybe an equalizer and a SPL meter).

[Poss]

I used a headphone jack on my integrated amplifier (Myryad Z140). When I did the comparison I listened for obvious changes in the detail, and soundstage, not changes. in tone. So my comparison was flawed, I think idealy one would A+B switch between two cdp's plugged into the same amplifier. I don't plan on buying anything other than speakers to improve the sound quality of my system in the future (or maybe an equalizer and a SPL meter).

Level of detail and the way complicated, busy musical passages are handled is what usually sets CD players appart. Technical specs usually don't say much about how or if a player will run out of steam while trying to negociate a sudden raise in sound level with added instruments on the table. That's why sometimes simply playing "regular" pop music cannot really tell two units appart (especially true with the current crop of artists).

Beethoven's symphonies however (and classical music in general) tend to sepparate players better (my favourite being of course the 9th... for testing that is, the one that's closer to my heart is the 7th).

I did once ABX a bunch of CD players and I had surprisingly little trouble picking the one that I actually ended buying (yes the levels were matched closely and yes I used an ABX device). The differences were not in tonality but in dynamics and details. You know, the Devil is in the details (or the lack thereoff). It would be nice if my ears wouls agree with my wallet though... :-)

Finally, there are DSPs on the market (but I don't have any experience with them at all) that will optimize the system response according to your listening position and room acoustics. A simple EQ won't cut the mustard IMHO.

Peace!

[DMK]

I used a headphone jack on my integrated amplifier (Myryad Z140). When I did the comparison I listened for obvious changes in the detail, and soundstage, not changes. in tone. So my comparison was flawed, I think idealy one would A+B switch between two cdp's plugged into the same amplifier. I don't plan on buying anything other than speakers to improve the sound quality of my system in the future (or maybe an equalizer and a SPL meter).

I should have used the amp also - at least as a check! But it matters not as I still own the same two CDP's I listed. I found that the minute differences weren't worth fretting over.

Skeptic has convinced me to try equalization in my system (he IS persistent!) and I may try surround at some point. Aside from that, my system is set.

[Beckman]

Finally, there are DSPs on the market (but I don't have any experience with them at all) that will optimize the system response according to your listening position and room acoustics. A simple EQ won't cut the mustard IMHO.

Peace!

A simple eq might not cut the mustard, but what about a 1/3 ocatve eq. A DSP essential does the same thing as an eq.