The Better Your System, the worse a pre 1980 CD will sound?

[hershon]

Interested on your thoughts on this. It reminds me of an episode of "Taxi" where a woman tells Louie "if you really love me, then you'll never see me". Specfically, after I returned my Marantz 5400 CD player today to a high end Stereo place in LA called Shellys one day after I purchased it, telling him my CD's such as the Beatles "Revolver" sounded a lot better played through my JVC DVD receiver than through the Marantz CD player via the JVC receiver, the salesman who was a good guy and didn't give me any grief, thought about it for a minute and said "the better the sound equipment, the worse 1960's and 1970's recorded CDs (including remastered ones) will sound because their recording deficiencies will be even more noticeable then." Conversely the worse your equipment (within limits), the better these CD's will sound. Do you agree with him?
This sounds like a can't win position for me as 85% of my 1000 or so CD's are pre 1980's recordings. Any advice at all other than stop listening to this music?

[topspeed]

Do you agree with him?

Obviously, the more revealing your equipment becomes, the more you're going to hear any weaknesses in your chain, be it cd's, cd player, preamp, amps or whatever. Of course, this also means that stellar recording will absolutely sing and take you that much closer to the actual event. So yes, it's a double edged sword.

However, there is excellent equipment available that can be highly involving musically yet more forgiving than others. Sonus Faber comes to mind as a very forgiving yet highly musical speaker. Canton and possibly Von Schweikert would fit the bill as well (although VSA isn't nearly as dark as either). Keep in mind though, "forgiving" doesn't mean they can magically make a poor recording sound good. A bad recording is a bad recording. It just won't be as obviously grating as on a system that is transparent almost to a fault, like one that uses B&W Nauts or Harbeths.

If I were you, I wouldn't worry about whether or not I could get "better" sound if I'm happy with my current rig. You're walking down the dangerous path known as "audiophilia" or rather "upgrade hell." To me, these are the people that loose site of the music and instead become more enamored with the gear. "Gear geeks" as they were so aptly coined by a friend. This is a dangerous and usually expensive road to travel so be forewarned.

[hershon]

Wow, your right, I'm becoming what I dispise- someone looking for a musical holy grail where maybe there is none. Anyway, while I'm 100% happy with my Orb Mod 1 speaker & sub system, are there any recievers and CD players that are as you said are more "musically forgiving" & could you give me the brand names and models and I'll research this. Thanks for your help.

As an aside, has anyone ever played "Revolver" By the Beatles on Cd in their system and been delighted by its sound. If so, what is your system? When I was a kid, the first time I ever heard this was on someone stereo system in the 60's and the sound was the most amazing sound I've ever heard in my life and haven't heard since and I've always wondered what kind of stereo system they had circa 1966 that could have produced such an incredible quality.

Obviously, the more revealing your equipment becomes, the more you're going to hear any weaknesses in your chain, be it cd's, cd player, preamp, amps or whatever. Of course, this also means that stellar recording will absolutely sing and take you that much closer to the actual event. So yes, it's a double edged sword.

However, there is excellent equipment available that can be highly involving musically yet more forgiving than others. Sonus Faber comes to mind as a very forgiving yet highly musical speaker. Canton and possibly Von Schweikert would fit the bill as well (although VSA isn't nearly as dark as either). Keep in mind though, "forgiving" doesn't mean they can magically make a poor recording sound good. A bad recording is a bad recording. It just won't be as obviously grating as on a system that is transparent almost to a fault, like one that uses B&W Nauts or Harbeths.

If I were you, I wouldn't worry about whether or not I could get "better" sound if I'm happy with my current rig. You're walking down the dangerous path known as "audiophilia" or rather "upgrade hell." To me, these are the people that loose site of the music and instead become more enamored with the gear. "Gear geeks" as they were so aptly coined by a friend. This is a dangerous and usually expensive road to travel so be forewarned.

[topspeed]

Wow, your right, I'm becoming what I dispise- someone looking for a musical holy grail where maybe there is none. Anyway, while I'm 100% happy with my Orb Mod 1 speaker & sub system, are there any recievers and CD players that are as you said are more "musically forgiving" & could you give me the brand names and models and I'll research this. Thanks for your help.

Well, I'm partial to the way Denon treats RBCD's, especially in Pure Direct mode. My 3803 process' the signal with no less than 16(!) Burr-Brown DAC's for a very smooth, analog-like sound. This mode also shuts down all video, dsp's, and anything else that could degrade the signal and comes the closest to turning the receiver into a passive pre. However, I think the onboard amps suck in two channel and added an outboard amp soon after I installed the Denon. There's always a trade-off...

To realize the next level of performance, you're probably going to need to move to separates. You can get very good amps and pre-amps for under $1K from B&K, Rotel, and Parasound and that's if you buy new. If you go used, a whole new world is open to you. Amps, in particular are great buys used as they contain no moving parts and many times their warranties are transferrable. Just go to audiogon.com and dream a little.

As an aside, has anyone ever played "Revolver" By the Beatles on Cd in their system and been delighted by its sound. If so, what is your system? When I was a kid, the first time I ever heard this was on someone stereo system in the 60's and the sound was the most amazing sound I've ever heard in my life and haven't heard since and I've always wondered what kind of stereo system they had circa 1966 that could have produced such an incredible quality.

Boy, don't we all have memories like this? I wonder if it wasn't so much the '60's stereo system you are in love with as much as it was that time in your life? The Beatles music, as all great music does, simply turns into the vehicle that takes you back there emotionally. Rose colored glasses and whatnot...

[shokhead]

I try to only buy remastered older stuff if possibly. You want something that sounds good,try cd's in DTS surround.

[Woochifer]

I think that really depends. So many variables at work here, most prominently the source recordings. Most of these pre 1980 recordings were likely monitored on something like the JBL 4310, and mastered for maximum sound quality on a vinyl rig. A lot of the CD transfers were clearly rushed to market without regard for sound quality, or how the artists or production team intended the recording to sound. On top of that, speakers nowadays have moved away from the tonal characteristics of the vintage JBLs.

Audiophile reissue labels such as Classic Records often involve the original production team when they remaster an album in order to identify the type of sound that the artist originally aimed for. Some mastering engineers also look for vault copies of a first release vinyl pressing, which they would then use as a sound reference. To them, the first issue vinyl LP might provide a better reference because it better reflects the intended sound. The master tape might have had adjustments and/or processing applied during the vinyl cutting process, and this can help flag the changes that were made and make any necessary corrections.

If you really want an idea of how good a vintage recording can sound when it's properly done, pick up a copy of Neil Young's Greatest Hits CD. It's easily one of the best classic rock remasters that I've heard. They also have a DVD+CD package that includes a high res 96/24 DVD that has even better sound quality (and it's playable through any DVD player).

[hershon]

If you do, I'd like to know what you think of the sound quality on CD. I read how george Martin personally remastered them and alot of them like "Revolver" sound totally mediocore.

I think that really depends. So many variables at work here, most prominently the source recordings. Most of these pre 1980 recordings were likely monitored on something like the JBL 4310, and mastered for maximum sound quality on a vinyl rig. A lot of the CD transfers were clearly rushed to market without regard for sound quality, or how the artists or production team intended the recording to sound. On top of that, speakers nowadays have moved away from the tonal characteristics of the vintage JBLs.

Audiophile reissue labels such as Classic Records often involve the original production team when they remaster an album in order to identify the type of sound that the artist originally aimed for. Some mastering engineers also look for vault copies of a first release vinyl pressing, which they would then use as a sound reference. To them, the first issue vinyl LP might provide a better reference because it better reflects the intended sound. The master tape might have had adjustments and/or processing applied during the vinyl cutting process, and this can help flag the changes that were made and make any necessary corrections.

If you really want an idea of how good a vintage recording can sound when it's properly done, pick up a copy of Neil Young's Greatest Hits CD. It's easily one of the best classic rock remasters that I've heard. They also have a DVD+CD package that includes a high res 96/24 DVD that has even better sound quality (and it's playable through any DVD player).

[Worf101]

I think that really depends. So many variables at work here, most prominently the source recordings. Most of these pre 1980 recordings were likely monitored on something like the JBL 4310, and mastered for maximum sound quality on a vinyl rig. A lot of the CD transfers were clearly rushed to market without regard for sound quality, or how the artists or production team intended the recording to sound. On top of that, speakers nowadays have moved away from the tonal characteristics of the vintage JBLs.

Audiophile reissue labels such as Classic Records often involve the original production team when they remaster an album in order to identify the type of sound that the artist originally aimed for. Some mastering engineers also look for vault copies of a first release vinyl pressing, which they would then use as a sound reference. To them, the first issue vinyl LP might provide a better reference because it better reflects the intended sound. The master tape might have had adjustments and/or processing applied during the vinyl cutting process, and this can help flag the changes that were made and make any necessary corrections.

If you really want an idea of how good a vintage recording can sound when it's properly done, pick up a copy of Neil Young's Greatest Hits CD. It's easily one of the best classic rock remasters that I've heard. They also have a DVD+CD package that includes a high res 96/24 DVD that has even better sound quality (and it's playable through any DVD player).

I'm sure that many of us were early adopters of CD technology. Much like when automobiles replaced horses, we thought we'd found a "perfect" technology. Now we know different. Just like horse poop gave way to smog, all the deficiencies of vinyl have led to a raft of hidden problems with CD's. For me at least, I was so happy to have a medium I didn't have to clean, could store in small place and absolutely that gave me no "snap, crackle or pop", that I didn't notice that I also had recordings with no bass, brittle highs, no depth and an overall sterile sound.

Motown was one of the first companies to re-release the bulk of its catalogue on CD. I bought tons of the stuff. It sounded great on my old 300 Watt Pilot receiver with my JVC speakers. Now on my Onkyo 898 and Platinum Audio Studio 3's they sound like ass. There's no getting around it I suppose every form of refuge has it's price.

Da Worfster

[dean_martin]

Two suggestions, one of which will cause some around here to take up arms and the other has its own drawbacks:

1) this is the more controversial suggestion - I prefer the Crystal brand digital to analog converter in my Cambridge Audio D300 cd player to the Burr-Brown 24/96 DAC in my AMC cd player with older and poorer recordings. I've had these players for 4 years and I've done several comparisons between them and have included a Panasonic dvd player with Burr-Brown 24/96 DACs in the comparisons at other times. At first, I thought the CA sounded smoother because it was less detailed, but then I began to hear the details that were so pronounced with the other players and concluded that the CA tended to blend everything together rather than causing or allowing things to pop out which results in a weightier rather than a leaner overall sound with some cds. This characteristic tends to mute the tizzy treble nasties and also alleviates the lack of bass to some degree with some early pop/rock recordings. It doesn't fill in bass, but it draws your attention away from the lack of bass. The Crystal in the CA D300 is an 18 or 20 bit DAC. (I think 16 bits is the redbook cd standard. I have yet to understand why it's necessary to have a 24 bit 96 or 192 Hz chip set to play back a 16 bit 44.1Hz medium.) So, I guess I'm suggesting that you audition different cd players. One that has the reputation (in some circles) for sounding "warm" with exagerated bass and rolled off highs is the Rega Planet 2000. If you want to take a hit or miss shot for relatively little money, check audiogon for a used Cambridge Audio D300, D300SE, or D500SE cd player. If you can track down a tube cdp like a Jolida it may be worth it to spend a couple of hours auditioning it with some of your favorite older recordings.

Some argue that there are no differences in sound among cd players, or, to be more precise, that you can't prove there are differences in sound. (Some would argue that I can't prove that the differences I've mentioned are due to the different DACs and they're right.) Most of the time I don't detect any differences, and the differences I've mentioned are probably so subtle that it's taken me 4 years to draw any conclusions. Chances are you want hear night and day differences when auditioning cd players, but who knows what YOUR ears will hear.

2) this is the more expensive suggestion - try a turntable. I've compared some early cd releases to their lp counterparts and have found the lps to be a tad more balanced with a little more bass weight. The releases I've probably spent the most time comparing are early REM albums. The first cd releases of albums like Murmur and Reckoning simply suck. The original lp versions do a slightly better job of filling out the bass and they don't have that irritating treble. But the version that brings out everything that was actually recorded for Murmur with the best presentation is the Mobile Fidelity LP. I have some remastered issues of 1960's jazz and rock (mostly Rolling Stones) on vinyl that sound as good as any new release on cd. Some of the studio recording equipment back then was actually very good, but inconvenient or cumbersome. With a little luck, you can get your hardware (table and cartridge) for less than you could get the cd players mentioned above. The biggest expense will be in reconstructing your cd collection on lp. You can find tons of remastered Beatles on vinyl. In fact, I think there was a recent re-issue.

BTW, I have early cd releases, probably '89 or so, of the White Album and Abbey Road that I haven't listened to in ages. I do remember that the Abbey Road cd sounds similar to your description of Revolver. I'll revisit them and post if there's anything relevant to report.

[hershon]

Thanks for your suggestions, I'm going to do some research on your Cambridge Audio D300 player. What receiver do you use with it? I'm totally not into vinyl because when I originally collected this stuff in the 60's & 70's- I've basically spent all my money on replacing all my vinyl albums with Cd's and replacing those CD's with the latest greatest remastered version, I scratched my records to smithereens! Oddly enough, when I play my CD's on my JVC receiver on the Marantz I had for all of one day, the dound was much better digitally through an optic cable than playing it through analogue cables. I also the next day then bought an Onkyo DCX-390 Cd player, and playing the same CD's as I did the Marantz, found the sound much better to my ears but still not as good as the sound coming from my original JVC DVD receiver set up.

If you want email me your address and I'll make you a CDR of "Revolver". I'm curious as to what you think of the sound.

As I said earlier, when I was around 12 or so, I heard Revolver on someones stereo system for the first time, I had never heard a stereo record before and it sounded like the Beatles were performing live in the room. I wish I knew what the guys set up was. I have never heard any recording sound as good since.

Two suggestions, one of which will cause some around here to take up arms and the other has its own drawbacks:

1) this is the more controversial suggestion - I prefer the Crystal brand digital to analog converter in my Cambridge Audio D300 cd player to the Burr-Brown 24/96 DAC in my AMC cd player with older and poorer recordings. I've had these players for 4 years and I've done several comparisons between them and have included a Panasonic dvd player with Burr-Brown 24/96 DACs in the comparisons at other times. At first, I thought the CA sounded smoother because it was less detailed, but then I began to hear the details that were so pronounced with the other players and concluded that the CA tended to blend everything together rather than causing or allowing things to pop out which results in a weightier rather than a leaner overall sound with some cds. This characteristic tends to mute the tizzy treble nasties and also alleviates the lack of bass to some degree with some early pop/rock recordings. It doesn't fill in bass, but it draws your attention away from the lack of bass. The Crystal in the CA D300 is an 18 or 20 bit DAC. (I think 16 bits is the redbook cd standard. I have yet to understand why it's necessary to have a 24 bit 96 or 192 Hz chip set to play back a 16 bit 44.1Hz medium.) So, I guess I'm suggesting that you audition different cd players. One that has the reputation (in some circles) for sounding "warm" with exagerated bass and rolled off highs is the Rega Planet 2000. If you want to take a hit or miss shot for relatively little money, check audiogon for a used Cambridge Audio D300, D300SE, or D500SE cd player. If you can track down a tube cdp like a Jolida it may be worth it to spend a couple of hours auditioning it with some of your favorite older recordings.

Some argue that there are no differences in sound among cd players, or, to be more precise, that you can't prove there are differences in sound. (Some would argue that I can't prove that the differences I've mentioned are due to the different DACs and they're right.) Most of the time I don't detect any differences, and the differences I've mentioned are probably so subtle that it's taken me 4 years to draw any conclusions. Chances are you want hear night and day differences when auditioning cd players, but who knows what YOUR ears will hear.



2) this is the more expensive suggestion - try a turntable. I've compared some early cd releases to their lp counterparts and have found the lps to be a tad more balanced with a little more bass weight. The releases I've probably spent the most time comparing are early REM albums. The first cd releases of albums like Murmur and Reckoning simply suck. The original lp versions do a slightly better job of filling out the bass and they don't have that irritating treble. But the version that brings out everything that was actually recorded for Murmur with the best presentation is the Mobile Fidelity LP. I have some remastered issues of 1960's jazz and rock (mostly Rolling Stones) on vinyl that sound as good as any new release on cd. Some of the studio recording equipment back then was actually very good, but inconvenient or cumbersome. With a little luck, you can get your hardware (table and cartridge) for less than you could get the cd players mentioned above. The biggest expense will be in reconstructing your cd collection on lp. You can find tons of remastered Beatles on vinyl. In fact, I think there was a recent re-issue.

BTW, I have early cd releases, probably '89 or so, of the White Album and Abbey Road that I haven't listened to in ages. I do remember that the Abbey Road cd sounds similar to your description of Revolver. I'll revisit them and post if there's anything relevant to report.

[Woochifer]

Two suggestions, one of which will cause some around here to take up arms and the other has its own drawbacks:

1) this is the more controversial suggestion - I prefer the Crystal brand digital to analog converter in my Cambridge Audio D300 cd player to the Burr-Brown 24/96 DAC in my AMC cd player with older and poorer recordings. ....[snip]

Some argue that there are no differences in sound among cd players, or, to be more precise, that you can't prove there are differences in sound. (Some would argue that I can't prove that the differences I've mentioned are due to the different DACs and they're right.) Most of the time I don't detect any differences, and the differences I've mentioned are probably so subtle that it's taken me 4 years to draw any conclusions. Chances are you want hear night and day differences when auditioning cd players, but who knows what YOUR ears will hear.

Controversial? Well, one out of two ain't bad ...

I'm not disputing that there are differences with DACs, what I do dispute is the magnitude of those differences. IMO, tweaks to the digital playback alone cannot and will not rescue a poorly done CD. Unless you're talking about something drastic like using tubes in the output stage, the differences between DACs won't be enough to overcome some of the issues that I brought up earlier like how CDs were often transferred using master sources designed for LP mastering and not adjusted for the characteristics of CDs.

2) this is the more expensive suggestion - try a turntable. I've compared some early cd releases to their lp counterparts and have found the lps to be a tad more balanced with a little more bass weight. The releases I've probably spent the most time comparing are early REM albums. The first cd releases of albums like Murmur and Reckoning simply suck. The original lp versions do a slightly better job of filling out the bass and they don't have that irritating treble. But the version that brings out everything that was actually recorded for Murmur with the best presentation is the Mobile Fidelity LP. I have some remastered issues of 1960's jazz and rock (mostly Rolling Stones) on vinyl that sound as good as any new release on cd. Some of the studio recording equipment back then was actually very good, but inconvenient or cumbersome. With a little luck, you can get your hardware (table and cartridge) for less than you could get the cd players mentioned above. The biggest expense will be in reconstructing your cd collection on lp. You can find tons of remastered Beatles on vinyl. In fact, I think there was a recent re-issue.

BTW, I have early cd releases, probably '89 or so, of the White Album and Abbey Road that I haven't listened to in ages. I do remember that the Abbey Road cd sounds similar to your description of Revolver. I'll revisit them and post if there's anything relevant to report.

Excellent suggestion because it really is about listening to something at it's best. I think this is a good illustration of my earlier point. It really comes down to those albums getting prepared with the assumption that the LP would be the best available playback for consumers, and the process was optimized for that. There are plenty of LPs in my collection that I much prefer to the CD version. Some of the better vinyl cutters out there like Doug Sax, Bob Ludwig, and Bernie Grundman were able to get consistently decent sound with the LPs that they mastered. If you compare the LPs that they mastered with the CD versions that came out early on (usually done by somebody else), you can pick up on how they tweaked with the recording to optimize the LP's sound.

A recording done with an edgy treble won't present much of a problem once it gets transferred to LP because the vinyl medium will gently rolls off the extreme highs. Supertramp's another great example where their LPs were often praised for how clear and detailed they sounded, yet the early issue CDs were jarringly harsh. I don't think it's coincidental that most of these remastered CDs have less prominent highs than the earlier versions.

[BC Dave]

I've got Rubber Soul on CD and it sounds absolutely amazing. The Beatles obviously had a few tricks up their sleeves. It would be interesting to know if McCartney is an audiophile or whether he listens to music on a no-name blaster. On the other hand, I have the Blood, Sweat and Tears' Greatest Hits CD and I bleed, sweat and tear up if I try to play that disc on my system. Lucretia McEvil sound positivity evil. The brass is so grating it creates an instant headache. I have Adcom separates (535II amp and tuner/preamp, Mission M73s with silk dome tweeters and a Mirage BPS-150 sub. With the right CD this system sounds terrific in a room with 14 foot vaulted ceilings. With the wrong stuff my son's $39 Koss blaster sounds better.

[dean_martin]

Controversial? Well, one out of two ain't bad ...

I'm not disputing that there are differences with DACs, what I do dispute is the magnitude of those differences. IMO, tweaks to the digital playback alone cannot and will not rescue a poorly done CD. Unless you're talking about something drastic like using tubes in the output stage, the differences between DACs won't be enough to overcome some of the issues that I brought up earlier like how CDs were often transferred using master sources designed for LP mastering and not adjusted for the characteristics of CDs.


.................................................. ............


A recording done with an edgy treble won't present much of a problem once it gets transferred to LP because the vinyl medium will gently rolls off the extreme highs. Supertramp's another great example where their LPs were often praised for how clear and detailed they sounded, yet the early issue CDs were jarringly harsh. I don't think it's coincidental that most of these remastered CDs have less prominent highs than the earlier versions.

It's been my impression that by the mid to late '80s even most consumers' vinyl rigs were woefully inadequate at reproducing the frequency extremes. The mass market turntables with pre-installed cartridges or the $30 carts purchased at the same time as the plastic tables suffered from loose, bloated bass and little or no high frequency extension. Somewhere in the process for run-of-the-mill pop/rock recordings, the highs were emphasized and the bass was minimized for lps to accomodate mass market vinyl rigs and this same technique was used for early cds. I think I read somewhere that this was intentional so as to not run into similar problems with the new cd players. If that's true, then boy were "they" wrong. What we got were pop recordings with no bass at all and treble that made dogs cry. I'm still amazed when comparing some early pop cds and original lps from the mid to late '80s to remastered LPs. (I know I keep referring to REM, but I would rather listen to the cassette version of Life's Rich Pageant than the first cd verison.) The cds sound awful while the original lps are only slightly better and on flimsy recycled vinyl. The original '70s lps in my collection are easier to listen to compared to my 80s lps which leads me to believe that something fishy may have been going on in the 80s to get us to jump on the cd bandwagon. Cds can be done right so I don't have a problem with the format itself, but those early cds...well, I think we've identified most of the problems.

BTW, I certainly agree that a DAC won't turn sh*t to gold. I just happen to have one player that I prefer over my others when listening to some of those early cds.

[RGA]

Interested on your thoughts on this. It reminds me of an episode of "Taxi" where a woman tells Louie "if you really love me, then you'll never see me". Specfically, after I returned my Marantz 5400 CD player today to a high end Stereo place in LA called Shellys one day after I purchased it, telling him my CD's such as the Beatles "Revolver" sounded a lot better played through my JVC DVD receiver than through the Marantz CD player via the JVC receiver, the salesman who was a good guy and didn't give me any grief, thought about it for a minute and said "the better the sound equipment, the worse 1960's and 1970's recorded CDs (including remastered ones) will sound because their recording deficiencies will be even more noticeable then." Conversely the worse your equipment (within limits), the better these CD's will sound. Do you agree with him?
This sounds like a can't win position for me as 85% of my 1000 or so CD's are pre 1980's recordings. Any advice at all other than stop listening to this music?

Let me ask something - you have a receiver that is also a DVD player correct? Then you brougt home a Marantz receiver and connected it to the DVD receiver and got worse sound?

If that's correct it has nothing to do with the recording it could very well be that the DVD receiver has poor rca jacks - as as pointed out to me by Woochifer when I said my Apsire DVD player was lousy for CD - I didn't think that a receiver maker would put disastrous RCA connections on them but they cheap out so it's not surprising.

I would not agree with recording difficiencies of years past either. As I sit here I'm listening to a Deutch Gramophone compilation cd of classical recordings from 1962 through the 1970s and 1980s and all are absolutely spectacularly recorded. No argument that some classic rock sounds bad - but Jackson Browne from the 1970s sounds good.

As for the Beatles I have their RED apple greatest hits early 1960s which sounds poor both on LP and CD - though I confess I have not listened to either on my new system. It's thin sounding but I have since bought new speakers and a new turntable so I should try them sometime.

[hershon]

You're correct that my JV RX-DV31SL 500 watts receiver has a DVD player built in but I connected the Marantz 5400 CD player (and later an Onkyo 390 highly rare CD player) to the receiver first by analogue using the analogue inputs on the back of the receiver & an expensive high end (I forgot the name of the brand which I returned) RCA cable & then digitally using an optic cable and connection under the "auzillary" control. Both players sounded better hearing them digitally through the optical cable than by analogue but my built in DVD player sounded much better than the Marantz which sounded in your face and harsh & (my DVD player sounded) about 15% better than the Onkyo which sounded alot better than the Marantz and the sound was warmer and richer than the Marantz.

As posted on another thread, I admit I'm becoming obsessive about this, I discovered a high end store on the web called Music Direct which sells products that they've stated will improved the sound quality of a CD greatly and offers a 30 day return policy. Their web site is http://www.amusicdirect.com/default.asp & I just purchased the following from them- cost me about $400 total: 1. Bedini Ultra Clarifier Quad Beam, 2. Bright Star Audio ISOROCK 4 PLATFORM, Walker Audio Vivid 3. CD & DVD Enhancer (liquid nonreturnable), 4. Sound Improvement Disc (SID),.
To be honest I'm totally skeptical about this but having talked to these people on the phone- its a very high end store and they absolutely assured me that each of these products would improve my CD sound (they also work on DVD's as well) significantly, seemed to know what they were talking about and the store specializes in very high end audio equipment and they didn't do a hard sell, I figured what the hell, I have 30 days to return. If I notice these things really do work I'll post that on here.