Can your CD Player make a difference?

[mtrycraft]

If the "he" is me, what criteria would that be?



If you recall, and you don't very well, I found the Tag McLaren reference to be credible because unlike EVERY OTHER REFERENCE of yours, they actually provided details as to the specifics of the test including both hardware and software. The only way to evaluate ANY test is to have knowledge of that which is being tested. Otherwise, you are relying on blind faith. Gee, isn't that what you accuse others of?

rw

You answered your own question.

[WmAx]

The only way to evaluate ANY test is to have knowledge of that which is being tested. Otherwise, you are relying on blind faith. Gee, isn't that what you accuse others of?

Mtrycrafts next response to you is a bit indirect, IMO. What he means, I believe, is that the Sensible Sound article mentioned did not identify the specific hi-end players the RCA was compared. The Sensible Sound stated the reason they did not disclose the specific information:

"I'm not going to get into brand names used used in the comparison; that always causes an uproar from the people who happen to own the expoesive components used in the comparision."

I did not notice where they specified DBT. I believe it was a single blind test.

Therefor, the article does not hold up to scrutiny.

COuld you please link or reference me to the Tag McLaren article? I do not remember what this is, but it sounds interesting.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

Mtrycrafts next response to you is a bit indirect, IMO.

D'ya think? If you don't like the direction of the inquiry then dodge it.

COuld you please link or reference me to the Tag McLaren article? I do not remember what this is, but it sounds interesting.

My pleasure. It is found in the body of this rather humorous exchange with you-know-who.

Is a heavy guage power cord helpful?

I await a single report of any DBT that provides even an inkling of the detail that the Tag one does that SUPPORTS the party line here. I'm not saying they don't exist, but given the alleged sheer vastness of the empirical evidence, why is it no one here can point to even one such reference?

rw

[mtrycraft]

D'ya think? If you don't like the direction of the inquiry then dodge it.


My pleasure. It is found in the body of this rather humorous exchange with you-know-who.

Is a heavy guage power cord helpful?

I await a single report of any DBT that provides even an inkling of the detail that the Tag one does that SUPPORTS the party line here. I'm not saying they don't exist, but given the alleged sheer vastness of the empirical evidence, why is it no one here can point to even one such reference?

rw

Because none are as detailed as you seem to need. You still haven't come up with any quality that supports audible differences, let alone one that meets your needs. Why?

But, you may try:
"To Tweak, or Not to Tweak?", Tom Nousaine, Stereo Review, Jun 98, pg 79-81. Certainly outlines all the components used.

These identify the amps, not the cables:
"Audiolab Test: Six Power Amplifiers", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, May 1977, pg 44-50.

"Audiolab Test: Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, Jun 1981, pg 24-27.

"Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Masters, Ian G., Stereo Review, Jan 1987, pg 78-84.

"Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", Carlstrom, D., Kruger, A., & Greenhill, L., The Audio Amateur, 3/1982, pg 30, 31.

"Equipment Profile", Greenhill, L. & Clark, D., Audio, Apr 1985, pg 56-60, 82-97.

Amp Tests, Boston Audio Society Speaker, Vol 21, No.2, pg 18-20, Sep 1997.

I am sure you have read all these?

[mtrycraft]

Mtrycrafts next response to you is a bit indirect, IMO.

I did not notice where they specified DBT. I believe it was a single blind test.

Therefor, the article does not hold up to scrutiny. -Chris

He didn't specifically state single or doubl blind. But he seems to know how to do one and may have indicated it in a follow up issue, or not, but an email to him would certainly fix the speculation. I seriously doubt it was single blind.
If the protocol had problems, he would have gotten a positive outcome as that is what happens with flawed protocols, usually.
No explanation would be enough for estat.

[E-Stat]

Because none are as detailed as you seem to need.

Let me help you out here Sparky. I request a simple report of the equipment and musical content that is used. Why do your sources never provide such basic details? Tell me of what they are afraid?

You still haven't come up with any quality that supports audible differences, let alone one that meets your needs. Why?

Let me help you out again. ANY and ALL tests for anything must be put in context of that which is tested. Do you think that tests conducted on a Hyundai will mimic the results when carried out on a Ferrari? Do you any comprehension of what I am saying? When you use mediocre components, you will get mediocre results. Is there any part of that you don't understand?

But, you may try:
"To Tweak, or Not to Tweak?", Tom Nousaine, Stereo Review, Jun 98, pg 79-81. Certainly outlines all the components used.

These identify the amps, not the cables:
"Audiolab Test: Six Power Amplifiers", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, May 1977, pg 44-50.

"Audiolab Test: Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, Jun 1981, pg 24-27.

"Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Masters, Ian G., Stereo Review, Jan 1987, pg 78-84.

"Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", Carlstrom, D., Kruger, A., & Greenhill, L., The Audio Amateur, 3/1982, pg 30, 31.

"Equipment Profile", Greenhill, L. & Clark, D., Audio, Apr 1985, pg 56-60, 82-97.

Amp Tests, Boston Audio Society Speaker, Vol 21, No.2, pg 18-20, Sep 1997.

Fine. Provide access to these references and I will be happy to comment.

rw

[mtrycraft]

I request a simple report of the equipment and musical content that is used. Why do your sources never provide such basic details? Tell me of what they are afraid?


Not a big deal to many. Which music source would make you happy? Will that make others happy too? Really?


Let me help you out again. ANY and ALL tests for anything must be put in context of that which is tested.

Oh, they are. A Cd player costing $3000 should be a stellar component to compare with an $80 one, no matter what.


Do you think that tests conducted on a Hyundai will mimic the results when carried out on a Ferrari?

And, you really think a car example is in any way comparable to audio components? Really?



When you use mediocre components, you will get mediocre results.

That is your flawed assumption not supported by facts, or you would cite a few.





Provide access to these references and I will be happy to comment.

rw

Ah, you have a library. Use their resources. Do some research of your own.

[skeptic]

I just replaced my venerable old Denon DCD1520 20 bit player in my main system with a JVC 1 bit player. There is no doubt that despite the nearly identical published analog specifications for performance they sound different. Their frequency responses are different. I am hardly surprised. This audible difference between one component and another to critical listeners for many types of components is inevitable. Fortunately, it is easily and cheaply compensated for with an equalizer. It takes time and patience but the results are worth the effort and when it is done, the sound will be indistinguishable from what the older unit produced.

You can chase your tail for the rest of your life listening to people who will tell you this unit or that blows the other away. The truth is that for most electrical components within their operating parameters (the real ones, not the phonied ones) there are differences but they are far more subtle and usually correctable to where one can be made to perform pretty much like another. The exceptions are transducers where other factors besides frequency response can be important. No amount of frequency response alteration can correct for a phonograph cartridge which can't track well. And no amount of equalization can make a direct firing loudspeaker sound like a bipolar speaker or correct for poor high frequency dispersion.

It is rediculous therefore to spend much more than about $300 or $400 on a cd player. The selection should be based on features you want and need such as the number of discs it can handle at one time, the ease of using the controls, features like 4 way repeat (very valuable for musicians who like to practice along with the disc) and remote controlable volume control with a variable output (useful for people like me with old preamps, amps,and receivers which don't have a remotely controlled volume control of their own.)

We've been down the cd versus vinyl disc arguement a million times here. rb repored that he made a cd at home from a vinyl that was just about indistinguishable from the source. Many re-releases of old vinyl recordings on cd are poorly made because of sloppy production techniques where getting product out the door fast to maximize profits was the only concern or because deteriorated old analog master tapes are used as the source. Many times, what audiophiles think is dynamic compression is actually lack of dynamic compression. If some parts of a recording seem soft and "bland", it's because other parts will get much louder, much much louder by comparison, something often not possible within the limitations of analog tapes and discs. There is also far less tendency to tweak and twirl the equalization and sound effects knobs in reissuing old recordings and when they do, it isn't done by the same people in the same way as the vinyl was so they sound different. If you don't like that, you will have to settle for vinyl and tape recordings instead. However, the reality no matter what some lovers of vinyl phonograph records say, and I am one of them, is that from a performance capability point of view, cds when properly recorded can far outperform in every conceivable way, anything possible on a vinyl analog phonograph record.

[E-Stat]

This audible difference between one component and another to critical listeners for many types of components is inevitable. Fortunately, it is easily and cheaply compensated for with an equalizer. It takes time and patience but the results are worth the effort and when it is done, the sound will be indistinguishable from what the older unit produced.

What EQ settings account for a perceptibly larger and deeper soundstage? A couple years back, I heard a very good CD player vs. my reviewer friend's reference. It was easy to discern the differences between the two on his system. While I was pulling for the little guy (I did end up buying that model), the reference unit clearly was superior in several aspects.

rw

[skeptic]

Perceptions of directionality are strongly influenced by high frequencies.

[rb122]

"rb repored that he made a cd at home from a vinyl that was just about indistinguishable from the source. "

Due to requests from others and due to others claiming results that were in opposition to mine, I performed this experiment again, this time using two of the original CD-R's and making two more. Same results. I have excellent hearing and at least decent attention span and I could not reliably discern the vinyl from the CD-R made from vinyl.

"However, the reality no matter what some lovers of vinyl phonograph records say, and I am one of them, is that from a performance capability point of view, cds when properly recorded can far outperform in every conceivable way, anything possible on a vinyl analog phonograph record."

I would emphasize the word "capability" and I wouldn't argue it necessarily. But that's living in the theoretical world rather than the actual world as my experience and that of many others is that vinyl in reality outperforms CD. The other part of the test I did above was comparing the CD-R to the commercial CD in which the CD-R from vinyl was audibly superior and by a very wide margin. This lends credence to your contention about sloppy production techniques, etc. But those of us in the less-than-scientific world are less concerned about which medium has the capability than with which medium delivers the goods. I won't argue science; only sound. Interestingly, much of my argument about sound is blatantly provable - again, likely due to your point about production techniques and using worn out master tapes, but still provable if one is being honest.

[skeptic]

Comparing re-releases of classical music on cd to vinyl by top labels such as DG, Philips, RCA, CBS, etc reveals a very different story. For example, the re-releases of Leonard Bernsteins recordings on Sony/Columbia Prince Charles series of 100 discs demonstrates that the results of the extraordinary efforts they went to in order to capture the best of the original recording shows clearly. And for once, the 50hz high pass filter Columbia used in many of their orchestral recordings was not used for the re-release. All of the gimmickry used in many vinyls like Columbia 360 sound, London Phase 4, RCA Dynagroove were dropped and the results are often much more lifelike. Apparantly the record company executives feel the same way I do about the relative value and merits of classical music versus pop music. While their money is in pop, their hearts and best efforts are in classical. Perhaps this explains the difference. BTW, that was true even in vinyl days when everyone in the record industry knew that classical always got virgin vinyl for pressings while pop music got the reground grunge. With such a narrow dynamic range, it just didn't matter.

[rb122]

"Comparing re-releases of classical music on cd to vinyl by top labels such as DG, Philips, RCA, CBS, etc reveals a very different story"

Disagree, particularly on DG, although perhaps the inherent brightness in DG CD's is indeed on the recording and the LP ferrets it out. Whatever the reason, the LP is much more lifelike, IMHO. Agree on Dynagrooves - pretty pathetic on vinyl. Columbia jazz was also pretty mediocre on vinyl as well as Columbia classical.

"Apparantly the record company executives feel the same way I do about the relative value and merits of classical music versus pop music. While their money is in pop, their hearts and best efforts are in classical. Perhaps this explains the difference. BTW, that was true even in vinyl days when everyone in the record industry knew that classical always got virgin vinyl for pressings while pop music got the reground grunge. With such a narrow dynamic range, it just didn't matter."

Or perhaps it was the classical listeners that griped about pressings the most while the pop listeners were content to simply enjoy the music rather than complain about the pressings. If you're going to speculate, the possibilities are many.

[E-Stat]

Perceptions of directionality are strongly influenced by high frequencies.

I'll try turning up the HF level control on my transformers to test your assertion, but somehow I doubt that alone is going to change the image depth. I'll let you know.

Somehow I believe it is a teensy weensy more than that.

rw

[skeptic]

OK then let's not speculate. Fact; most popular music has a limited dynamic range. There are many reasons for this including that radio stations prefer them that way, they sell better that way, and there are far fewer musicians in an ensemble. Therefore the requriements for commercially acceptable recordings in regard to a quiet background at least during the vinyl LP's hayday was much more modest than for classical music.

It is also true that in the forties, fifties, and sixties, many recording executives of the larger companies like RCA, CBS, Angel, EMI, London, Philips, DG had a personal interest in classical music themselves. RCA for example went to great lengths to record music at the Metropolitan Opera, in Italy, and at many other venues with the greatest classical artists of that day even thought they were not the big money makers for them.

[mtrycraft]

What EQ settings account for a perceptibly larger and deeper soundstage? A couple years back, I heard a very good CD player vs. my reviewer friend's reference. It was easy to discern the differences between the two on his system. While I was pulling for the little guy (I did end up buying that model), the reference unit clearly was superior in several aspects.

rw

I thought you didn't speculate?

[E-Stat]

I thought you didn't speculate?

My experience does not support Skeptic's theory that the qualitative differences I hear are solely due to frequency response variations. Perhaps that is the case between his two CD players, not between the Burmester 969/970 and the GamuT CD-1.

rw

[Geoffcin]

My experience does not support Skeptic's theory that the qualitative differences I hear are solely due to frequency response variations. Perhaps that is the case between his two CD players, not between the Burmester 969/970 and the GamuT CD-1.

rw

I agree. My experience with CD players goes back to their introduction, and the qualitative differences are easy to hear by anybody with ever a cursory interest in sound quality. Perhaps the measurements are not specifically measuring what we are hearing as most modern, even cheap CD players ace the frequency response test.

[mtrycraft]

My experience does not support Skeptic's theory that the qualitative differences I hear are solely due to frequency response variations. Perhaps that is the case between his two CD players, not between the Burmester 969/970 and the GamuT CD-1.

rw

I suppose your experience cannot be unreliable, due to flawed and biased methodology?
As is, you will never know one way or the other.

[mtrycraft]

My experience with CD players goes back to their introduction, and the qualitative differences are easy to hear by anybody with ever a cursory interest in sound quality.

Many have tried, few have succeeded and for know reasons, not mythical ones.

Unfortunately most of the claims are unreliable, like yours. So, we have nothing to judge by.



Perhaps the measurements are not specifically measuring what we are hearing as most modern, even cheap CD players ace the frequency response test.

Or, perhaps you are not hearing what you think you are. You have never demonstrated you hear what you claim to. So, speculation is simple and easy. Answers will never come from that.

[E-Stat]

I suppose your experience cannot be unreliable, due to flawed and biased methodology? As is, you will never know one way or the other.

I don't share your insecurity. In the case I mentioned, my reviewer friend asked me my thoughts after hearing the two for about fifteen minutes with a very nice Philip Glass piano recording. I made three specific observations. He agreed that he heard the same distinctions with comparative listening over a period about a month.

You know, I'll bet you are just a bundle of joy to listen to music with. For that matter, do you actually listen to music?

E: Say, Mtry isn't it neat the way Michael Hedges can hit a clean harmonic anytime on his guitar. Did 'ya just hear that last quiet one?

M: You didn't hear that. No one has proven it with unbiased testing yet. Your hearing is too unreliable for you to hear such details.

E: Here, let's cue the track backwards and listen again. Here it is again. What do you think?

M: Think of me as a ditchdigger. What I think is unimportant. You are just deluding yourself to think that you are hearing anything.

rw

[Arch]

LOL! Hey E-Stat that's funny!

[thepogue]

Thank you for all your thoughtful responses.

After reviewing them, it has become clear to me that my problem is that I truly enjoy the analogue sound found in tapes and vinyl. Trouble is, I prefer the CD as a sound storage medium.

Guess only thing left for me to do is wait for some bright sound engineer to figure out how to make CDs and other digital sources sound like analogue sources.

I will do something else as well. I will follow the example of that person who bought an old CD player likely to be less digital sounding.

What I plan to do, specifically, is go out and buy a not too old Technics CD Player with MASH technology and a TosLink (if possible), so I do have analogue and digital connection options.

I recall that when the MASH technology first came out, certain audio critics were raving about it. I have always found Panasonic/Techics products to sound warmer than the Yamaha machines that I have.

So I will give the "warm and fuzzy" Technics a try, having tired of "cold and precise" Yamaha.

Any responses to this?

Anyway, I will let you know if I like the sound better.

And no, for those who did not take me seriously, I was perfectly serious about what I liked and did not like about my system.

Jeffrey N, Toronto

still do...in fact i have played it next to my Parasound 1000 and a Adcom 5XX cd player and it sounded warmer but less detailed. I think the whole cd/tape/vinal thing has to do with the detail of the music....them more exacting, the more highs, the more chance of being etchie (is that a word? I've got a tube set-up in one room of my house and love running a cd back and forth 'tween systems...the tube/klipsh set up has less detail than my Paradigm/adcom sys (no surprise there) and although the tube seem more user friendly the detailing of the second sys. is far more impressive...some day I'd like the have the best of both worlds in one set up but I'm to cheap to go buy it outright...I's a second and third hand man....but I'm still on a Martin Logan hunt grrrrr.....if ya wanna sell your cd plaer throw it this way!!

[Hivihead]

When you play any analog source(turntable, tape deck, etc), it always sounds warmer and softer than digital's. Remember, CD players rely on '0' and '1' as signal passes thru the D/A converter. That's why a 24bit CD player sounds better 16bit one. Listento a good CD player and you'll know what i am talking about.

[mtrycraft]

Remember, CD players rely on '0' and '1' as signal passes thru the D/A converter. That's why a 24bit CD player sounds better 16bit one. Listento a good CD player and you'll know what i am talking about.

No, not really. 24 bits give a dynamic range that is well beyond anyone ability to utilize by 6 bits. You cannot hear it.
Stewart of Meridian indicates that 18 bits is about max detectable.