| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Source units affect sound?
I've noticed a thread here where there seems to be some argument over how a
source unit, such as a CD player, can affect the output quality of your system. I've sold audio equipment and tend to have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear some from those here on the board. Do you fellows (or ladies, as the case may be) believe in the idea that spending $5,000 on a CD player, as opposed to spending $500 on a player, will actually make any audible difference in sound quality? I'll chime in with my own thoughts at some point but I want to hear yours first. Is there really anything that an "audiophile" grade player can do that a "normal" one cannot? And how about tape decks and turntables? Do your feelings reagrding CD players carry over to those sources as well? Let's refrain from arguing over the varying levels of video quality that DVD players can produce. I only want to discuss audio here. Steve Grauman |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Grauman wrote:
I've noticed a thread here where there seems to be some argument over how a source unit, such as a CD player, can affect the output quality of your system. I've sold audio equipment and tend to have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear some from those here on the board. Do you fellows (or ladies, as the case may be) believe in the idea that spending $5,000 on a CD player, as opposed to spending $500 on a player, will actually make any audible difference in sound quality? I can't prove this, but I suspect that you can buy a CD player for less than $100 that can deliver ruler-flat frequency response and inaudible levels of distortion (including jitter) to a preamp. If that's true, no one will be able to distinguish that player from any more expensive player in a blind comparison--unless the more expensive player is defective in some way. I'll chime in with my own thoughts at some point but I want to hear yours first. Is there really anything that an "audiophile" grade player can do that a "normal" one cannot? Last longer? Decode HDCD disks, perhaps, which may or may not be a good thing. But I think the real difference is that "audiophile" CD players can inspire the imagination in ways that Technics just can't. And how about tape decks and turntables? Do your feelings reagrding CD players carry over to those sources as well? Analog's a different ballgame. No turntable or tape deck, at any price, can deliver ruler-flat frequency response and inaudible levels of distortion to a preamp. So naturally it's possible (make that likely) that any two will sound different. bob |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Steve Grauman wrote: I've noticed a thread here where there seems to be some argument over how a source unit, such as a CD player, can affect the output quality of your system. I've sold audio equipment and tend to have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear some from those here on the board. Do you fellows (or ladies, as the case may be) believe in the idea that spending $5,000 on a CD player, as opposed to spending $500 on a player, will actually make any audible difference in sound quality? I can't prove this, but I suspect that you can buy a CD player for less than $100 that can deliver ruler-flat frequency response and inaudible levels of distortion (including jitter) to a preamp. If that's true, no one will be able to distinguish that player from any more expensive player in a blind comparison--unless the more expensive player is defective in some way. This assumes, of course, that the analog electronics contribute nothing to the final quality. IME, this is where the biggest difference will be beyond build quality...analog design as well as quality and expense of the parts. I'll chime in with my own thoughts at some point but I want to hear yours first. Is there really anything that an "audiophile" grade player can do that a "normal" one cannot? Last longer? Decode HDCD disks, perhaps, which may or may not be a good thing. But I think the real difference is that "audiophile" CD players can inspire the imagination in ways that Technics just can't. And how about tape decks and turntables? Do your feelings reagrding CD players carry over to those sources as well? Analog's a different ballgame. No turntable or tape deck, at any price, can deliver ruler-flat frequency response and inaudible levels of distortion to a preamp. So naturally it's possible (make that likely) that any two will sound different. Yeah, many more variables here requiring top-flight mechanical and materials engineering as well as electrical performance. But once again, analog design and build quality has much to do with final results...phono headamps and preamps, tape recorder output stages, etc. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with Bob on CD players. If a high end player sounds different
it is because it is adding something such as a peak in the response somewhere. For tape decks there are many differences. If you really want quality, Nakamichi is the only way to go. I can make a tape of a CD and be hard pressed to tell the difference (Nak ZX-7). With turntables, most cartridges sound different, arms less so and the TT itself (unless it is really cheap) has minimal effect on the sound. A lot of high enders will argue on this (trying to justify all the money they spent!). ---MIKE--- |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Grauman wrote:
I've noticed a thread here where there seems to be some argument over how a source unit, such as a CD player, can affect the output quality of your system. I've sold audio equipment and tend to have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear some from those here on the board. Do you fellows (or ladies, as the case may be) believe in the idea that spending $5,000 on a CD player, as opposed to spending $500 on a player, will actually make any audible difference in sound quality? It's possible that a $5K CD player may sound different than a $500 one. However, the difference may be due to the $5K one being intentionally (or sometimes unintentionally, too) made to be less accurate. Like using tubes, for instance. I'll chime in with my own thoughts at some point but I want to hear yours first. Is there really anything that an "audiophile" grade player can do that a "normal" one cannot? And how about tape decks and turntables? Do your feelings reagrding CD players carry over to those sources as well? Let's refrain from arguing over the varying levels of video quality that DVD players can produce. I only want to discuss audio here. Steve Grauman If you want an accurate CD player, one that measures flat in frequency response and with excellent signal-to-noise ratio, you should be able to get that for significantly less than $500. Tape decks and turntables are highly mechanical devices, and it is easy to find significant differences between units. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well I have to say that I'm both surprised and delighted at the
responses I got. I had to deal with a customer several months ago, nice enough guy otherwise, but he swore to god that he could hear an audible difference between the $2,000 CD player he bought, and the $900 dollar one he had owned before. In my experience, at least when they're connected digitally via toslink, there's absolutely no audible difference between players costing around $150 and players costing 10 or 15 times that much. I've got a Denon DVD-1600 (DVD player) on our primary system that was purchased for $329, in my room is a slightly newer Pioneer player purchased for $199, I use both of them for CD playback as well as for DVDs and did A/B testing with them on our primary system, cinnected via toslink. The Denon is without a doubt a superior DVD player, but the Pioneer offers (as far as I can tell) identicle sound from CDs. I've also noticed that when running the same cartridge, I'm hard pressed to hear any differences between the $500 turntable in my room and the one on our main system that retailed for almost $2,000. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... Steve Grauman wrote: I've noticed a thread here where there seems to be some argument over how a source unit, such as a CD player, can affect the output quality of your system. I've sold audio equipment and tend to have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear some from those here on the board. Do you fellows (or ladies, as the case may be) believe in the idea that spending $5,000 on a CD player, as opposed to spending $500 on a player, will actually make any audible difference in sound quality? I can't prove this, but I suspect that you can buy a CD player for less than $100 that can deliver ruler-flat frequency response and inaudible levels of distortion (including jitter) to a preamp. If that's true, no one will be able to distinguish that player from any more expensive player in a blind comparison--unless the more expensive player is defective in some way. This assumes, of course, that the analog electronics contribute nothing to the final quality. Well, no it doesn't. I said, "deliver[ed]...to a preamp," which means that the signal's already been through the analog circuitry of the CDP. I'm suggesting that there are $100 disk players out there with both subjectively transparent analog stages AND subjectively perfect DACs. I'm not arguing that every $100 player would meet this test, although I suspect that the major, established manufacturers, who can amortize their research budget over millions of units, would have no trouble doing so. bob |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 1/9/05 3:42 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: It's possible that a $5K CD player may sound different than a $500 one. However, the difference may be due to the $5K one being intentionally (or sometimes unintentionally, too) made to be less accurate. Like using tubes, for instance Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully, the transport selected was capable of resisting jitter and the overall design was made to prevent digital timing errors. Also use of digital techniques to extract more information, lower the effective noise floor, a DAC that is state of the art, as well as a well thought out analog stage with the compromises made to be minor. IN this case, while *sometimes* you might be correct, in the majority of cases, it isn't true. In that case you should have no trouble coming up with a specific example of a measurably accurate $5K CD player that is audibly distinguishable from a $500 Rotel in a blind comparison. We're waiting. bob |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully,
the transport selected was capable of resisting jitter and the overall design was made to prevent digital timing errors. Also use of digital techniques to extract more information, lower the effective noise floor, a DAC that is state of the art, as well as a well thought out analog stage with the compromises made to be minor. I was waiting to see if someone would make these claims. In my testing of several CD players at various price points and built by various manufacturers, where all players were connected via toslink to the same a/v reciever powering the same speakers for every test, the was no audible difference between any of the players, ranging in price from around $150 to several thousand dollars. As far as I'm concerned, this is an indication that there is nothing that ultra expensive power supply and clocking devices can do that the human ear is capable of hearing. I've found that this is true of amplifiers too, that in comparing stand-alone amps, there wasn't anything the most expensive units could do to differentiate themselves audbilly form the least expensive units. This is also true, in my experience of "high end" wiring, where manufacturers and consumers alike are constantly assuring one another that a $1,000 toslink cable actually provides some audible level of difference over the $18 Acoustic Research cable sold at Best Buy. While it;s certainly important that your sources, amps and wiring be quality units, rarely, in today;s advanced world, could any of them be bad enough to truly be making your sound *audiblly* worse. It's the speakers being used and how well their being driven (powered) that in my experience makes the biggest difference, of course, it's also neccesary to have decent source material (a well mastered CD) and this is only constant when talking about digital sources. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 1/9/05 3:42 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: It's possible that a $5K CD player may sound different than a $500 one. However, the difference may be due to the $5K one being intentionally (or sometimes unintentionally, too) made to be less accurate. Like using tubes, for instance Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully, the transport selected was capable of resisting jitter and the overall design was made to prevent digital timing errors. You believe doing those things right cost $4.5K more? The transports used in the $$$ players are just the same as those used in players that cost an order of magnitude less. (In some cases grossly inferior transports were used, like the belt-driven ones.) The DAC chips used are often the same or even older than the ones used in the mass-manufactured players. Not that you are likely to hear the differences resulting from different DAC's used. Also use of digital techniques to extract more information, lower the effective noise floor, a DAC that is state of the art, as well as a well thought out analog stage with the compromises made to be minor. Do you seriously believe that the boutique makers can do a better job? We are talking about a CD player, and companies like Sony have been making CD players for 20 years. Don't you think they understand how to design CD players so that the errors are inaudible? I read that some high-end CD players even eliminate the anti-alias filters. That should tell you a lot about the design talent you find in some high-end labels. You are simply repeating the myths perpetuated by high-end marketing. IN this case, while *sometimes* you might be correct, in the majority of cases, it isn't true. In the majority of cases, CD players at $500 sound just as accurate, if not more accurate, than those at $5K. Please show me any measurement result that prove that $5K players outperform the $500 ones. Distortion to make it "sound good" is more prevalent in the low end than the high end - look at Bose as an example! Does Bose make a CD player? Have you listened to it? Does it sound bad? |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10 Jan 2005 01:05:20 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 1/9/05 3:42 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: It's possible that a $5K CD player may sound different than a $500 one. However, the difference may be due to the $5K one being intentionally (or sometimes unintentionally, too) made to be less accurate. Like using tubes, for instance Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully, the transport selected was capable of resisting jitter The lowest jitter transport assembly available *at any price* is the basic Sony model. That's why Arcam and others use it. and the overall design was made to prevent digital timing errors. The lowest jitter standalone players are mostly made by Sony. Also use of digital techniques to extract more information, Fundamentally impossible - don't believe everything the adverts tell you about upsampling! lower the effective noise floor, a DAC that is state of the art, as well as a well thought out analog stage with the compromises made to be minor. State of the art DACs are less than $5 each, and the cheapest players can produce ruler-flat FR with negligible distortion, proving that their analogue stages introduce no compromises whatever. IN this case, while *sometimes* you might be correct, in the majority of cases, it isn't true. Actually, it *is* true, and as has been pointed out by several other posters, the only way so-called 'high end' players sound different is when they *degrade* the sound. While I admire the thorough engineering, state-of-the-art design, and immaculate construction of the latest Meridian 588 player, it is sonically indistinguishable from my 10-year old Sony CDP-715E. Distortion to make it "sound good" is more prevalent in the low end than the high end - look at Bose as an example! Nope, tubed output stages and non-flat frequency response are the exclusive preserve of the high end. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have never quite understood the philosophy behind $5K players. They
usually are very heavy, shock absorption everywhere, heavy heavy transport, solid mechanisms, exotic materials and what have you. A lot of money is being spent on a superior design with, as far as I can tell, the goal to read the CD without any bit errors. And that's fine. But, wouldn't it be cheaper and better to take a 48x CD rom drive, read the material a few times as soon as the CD is inserted, compare the digital data, error check and what have you, store the data in memory which is not prone to errors due to vibrations and play it back from a memory buffer? Especially when taking a fast CD Rom, the data can be read many times and compared and checked and errors can be eliminated while the CD is playing. No need to have a real time stream that can have errors directly from the optical pick-up element in the CD player to the output of the DAC. The player could even let you know exactly when there is a read-out error on the CD that can't be corrected. I would say a design like that is superior to an on-the-fly processing type CD player, and can achieve lower bit error rates, most likely completely eliminating errors while under $1K, even with enough RAM to store the entire CD content. "B&D" wrote in message ... On 1/9/05 3:42 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: It's possible that a $5K CD player may sound different than a $500 one. However, the difference may be due to the $5K one being intentionally (or sometimes unintentionally, too) made to be less accurate. Like using tubes, for instance Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully, the transport selected was capable of resisting jitter and the overall design was made to prevent digital timing errors. Also use of digital techniques to extract more information, lower the effective noise floor, a DAC that is state of the art, as well as a well thought out analog stage with the compromises made to be minor. IN this case, while *sometimes* you might be correct, in the majority of cases, it isn't true. Distortion to make it "sound good" is more prevalent in the low end than the high end - look at Bose as an example! |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
If you look at a Benchmark DAC1 and put it up against an $20 Apex player, or even an iPod, you will find that it is leaps an bounds better at extracting detail and presenting it in a manner that is accurate and revealing of flaws in the recording. That is, in essence, what most Audiophiles are after - though many get caught up in gear that may not live up to that standard for a lot of money. "Accurate and revealing of flaws in the recording". I am afraid that only true believers in high-fidelity would like that kind of sound. (subjective stereotypes coming up!) You will find "audiophiles" who prefer a "warm sounding, lifelike" DAC as opposed to the "sterile, clinical, lifeless" sound of an accurate DAC. (i.e. not all audiophiles are after high-fidelity!) |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
B&D wrote: Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully, the transport selected was capable of resisting jitter and the overall design was made to prevent digital timing errors. You believe doing those things right cost $4.5K more? The transports used in the $$$ players are just the same as those used in players that cost an order of magnitude less. (In some cases grossly inferior transports were used, like the belt-driven ones.) The DAC chips used are often the same or even older than the ones used in the mass-manufactured players. Not that you are likely to hear the differences resulting from different DAC's used. Then there's the power supply. I can understand why a robust power supply is essential to a good amp, but I have a CD player that runs on two AA batteries. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but if you can run a player *at all* on that kind of juice, it's highly unlikely that you need your own generating station to get distortion-free sound out of a CD player. bob |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 1/9/05 3:42 PM, in article , "---MIKE---" wrote: I agree with Bob on CD players. If a high end player sounds different it is because it is adding something such as a peak in the response somewhere. You may agree, but I don't think that would always be correct. Well, at least now you're expressing an opinion, rather than stating "facts." By the way, I don't think it's always correct, either. Sometimes it'll be the cheaper one that's adding something. (Though the only specific cases I can think of were pretty expensive.) Take a $500 NAD C542 against a Arcam CD192 ($1700) - you will hear a definite improvement more detail, better high end and low end. Will be about 20% or so better, but better overall none the less. Sure, if you know which one cost 240% more. But can you even tell them apart without looking? bob |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 1/10/05 8:21 PM, in article , " wrote: In that case you should have no trouble coming up with a specific example of a measurably accurate $5K CD player that is audibly distinguishable from a $500 Rotel in a blind comparison. We're waiting. NAD C541i vs. Arcam CD192 is what I can offer as an example. You can throw in an iPod for comparison as well. iPod's not a CD player. As for the other two, you caught the phrase "blind comparison" in my post, didn't you? Please provide details: Level-matched, time-synched, statistically significant number of correct identifications? Or maybe you hadn't gotten that far. Too bad. See, if you had, then your opinion would be worth more than mine. And my opinion is that both those players are probably good enough, barring defects, that they would be audibly indistinguishable, whatever you think you may have heard. bob |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
" wrote: In my testing of several CD players at various price points and built by various manufacturers, where all players were connected via toslink to the same a/v reciever powering the same speakers for every test, the was no audible difference between any of the players, ranging in price from around $150 to several thousand dollars. That's because you're comparing the DAC in your receiver with the DAC in your receiver. Indeed, those different players could conceivably have the same transport mechanism. Stephen |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Take a $500 NAD C542 against a Arcam CD192 ($1700) - you will hear a
definite improvement more detail, better high end and low end. Will be about 20% or so better, but better overall none the less. I'm sorry, but my own tests have proven this notion to be false. I compared CD players from a broad spectrum of price points and by various manufacturers. All of them were connected to a Denon A/V reciever via optical connection and the Denon was powering Klipsch Reference Series speakers. I was unable to detect ANY difference in sonic quality between the units. Similar tests have been done elsewhere to the same effect. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please identify these two turntables for us.
The less expensive turntable is a Denon DP-500M, the more expensive is a Music Hall MMF-9. I tested them aganist each other using the same Stanton cartridge. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Jan 2005 01:23:50 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 1/9/05 7:25 PM, in article , " wrote: I'm not arguing that every $100 player would meet this test, although I suspect that the major, established manufacturers, who can amortize their research budget over millions of units, would have no trouble doing so. Actually, the major manufacturers know how to make a SOTA player - but choose not to, rather competing on cost and cost reduction. Actually, the major manufacturers do make SOTA players, all the time. The major manufacturers *are* the state of the art - they have the big R&D labs and the chip fabrication plants. Back street bodgers like Wadia and Naim have to trail along behind, using off-the-shelf parts from the big boys wrapped up in fancy casework. A CDP from Sony - if they decided to make a SOTA player (such as the SCD-1 or the SACD players they carried recently) Oh, so Sony *did* make a SOTA player? Make your mind up! it would be able to give you more for your money - especially due to the scale as you said, but also the use of factories in the developing world, such as China. Could they produce a $5000 player by a small fry for $100? Probably not - but they may be able to do it for $1-2k.... Why would they bother? They all *sound* the same, it's just that Sony knows that some people will pay extra for 'battleship' build quality and the very latest technology. This helps pay for the R&D........ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Jan 2005 01:18:16 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 1/9/05 3:41 PM, in article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: Analog's a different ballgame. No turntable or tape deck, at any price, can deliver ruler-flat frequency response and inaudible levels of distortion to a preamp. So naturally it's possible (make that likely) that any two will sound different. Yeah, many more variables here requiring top-flight mechanical and materials engineering as well as electrical performance. But once again, analog design and build quality has much to do with final results...phono headamps and preamps, tape recorder output stages, etc. Also keep in mind the power supply and digital transport are big adders to the final product. If a $20 CDP were truly SOTA, then there would be no need for outboard DAC's like the Benchmark DAC-1 which being a piece of pro gear for mastering music, has to be more accurate than an Apex $20 portable in order to justify its $900 price tag to the professionals! The Benchmark is a viable product for anyone with multiple digital sources, but it's fair to say that having SOTA performance makes it more of a 'comfort zone' item than actually producing any *audible* improvement over the average CD player. It is of course very simple to set up an ABX test with the Benchmark and any player having a digital output. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 1/10/05 8:24 PM, in article , "Chung" wrote: B&D wrote: On 1/9/05 3:42 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: It's possible that a $5K CD player may sound different than a $500 one. However, the difference may be due to the $5K one being intentionally (or sometimes unintentionally, too) made to be less accurate. Like using tubes, for instance Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully, the transport selected was capable of resisting jitter and the overall design was made to prevent digital timing errors. You believe doing those things right cost $4.5K more? The transports used in the $$$ players are just the same as those used in players that cost an order of magnitude less. (In some cases grossly inferior transports were used, like the belt-driven ones.) The DAC chips used are often the same or even older than the ones used in the mass-manufactured players. Not that you are likely to hear the differences resulting from different DAC's used. Instead of talking in theory - can you give me a concrete example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as a $500 one? What's wrong with talking in theory? Do you have any objections to the theory stated? Besides, saying that boutique companies use the same transports or DAC's as mass manufacturers is not stating a theory at all. It is fact. Very, very few boutique shops have the technical prowess to develop a DAC or a transport. What I gave you was an example or two of an expensive CD player that most likely does not sound as accurate as the $500 one. We were all trying to answer the OP's question, which was whether a $5K player sounds different than a $500 one. My detailed experience has been with less lofty CDP's - my personal experience between the NAD C541i, Arcam CD192, Bel Canto DAC-2, Sony SCD-2 and Ayre CX-7 showed good differences and gradations in price. Again, to *which* $5k player are you referring? I did not refer to any in particular. Was your personal experience based on level-matched blind testing? Also use of digital techniques to extract more information, lower the effective noise floor, a DAC that is state of the art, as well as a well thought out analog stage with the compromises made to be minor. Do you seriously believe that the boutique makers can do a better job? A good engineer who is aiming for good sound reproduction will do a better job than an engineer who is engineering for minimal performance for less than $10. And you don't think the engineers at Sony or Denon are aiming for good sound reproduciton? And you think that the engineers at Sony or Denon are working for less than $10? We are talking about a CD player, and companies like Sony have been making CD players for 20 years. Don't you think they understand how to design CD players so that the errors are inaudible? Sure they do - but you have to ask if they choose to do that if it will mean something costs $0.01 more than their price target. Sony and the other big guys know perfectly well how to design SOTA stuff - they don't always, and usually because of cost. And you still believe that the SOTA CD player designed by Sony will necessarily cost $5K, or at least $500? Do you have any prove that Sony will not put in a better part if it costs 1 cent more? SOTA simply means the errors are inaudible. There is no actual benefit in over designing. For example, there is no sense in designing an output stage with 20V swing, or one that has 0.0001% distortion. I read that some high-end CD players even eliminate the anti-alias filters. That should tell you a lot about the design talent you find in some high-end labels. That particular (misguided) technique was developed in Japan with full knowledge of what they were doing. It does not indicate anything but the desire to expeiment and see what will happen. But you don't see that kind of "experimenting" from Sony or Denon. Why even experiment, since theory can tell you why you need the anti-alias filter? And who is paying for the experimenting? You are simply repeating the myths perpetuated by high-end marketing. Actually if the big guys were interested in building truly high end gear (performance high end) they would do so, and the price tags would reflect, though be a relative bargain. Sony does this every so often, and their $500 SE SACD/CD players will blow just about anything out of the water until you get to about $1500-2000. So (a) which $5K player is better than the $500 Sony, (b) can the measurements prove that, and (c) can you tell them apart in a level-matched blind listening test? Their high end SACD player (first the SCD-1, and now the 3000ES) for $3k just about kills anything else out there, especially on SACD. The Intergra, Marantz and others are showing the value the dedicated R&D departments and manufacturing prowess of these organizations have to bring to the table. What the "high end marketing press" has got right is that much of the mass market is more interested in presenting something for "cheap" and less because it performs well. As we say in engineering, good enough is perfect! Only the high-end marketing press will tell you that a good CD player has to cost $$$! I have found this to be true, and hate spending a lot of money, but will spend it if there is value. When the mass marketers put their mind to it, they do really well and can offer things much cheaper than the boutiques. *If* they do this is another story. I hear a lot of mass marketing saying that MP3's are "CD Quality" - but listening the the CDP's by some of them, it might just be true. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 1/10/05 9:23 PM, in article , " wrote: You believe doing those things right cost $4.5K more? The transports used in the $$$ players are just the same as those used in players that cost an order of magnitude less. (In some cases grossly inferior transports were used, like the belt-driven ones.) The DAC chips used are often the same or even older than the ones used in the mass-manufactured players. Not that you are likely to hear the differences resulting from different DAC's used. Then there's the power supply. I can understand why a robust power supply is essential to a good amp, but I have a CD player that runs on two AA batteries. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but if you can run a player *at all* on that kind of juice, it's highly unlikely that you need your own generating station to get distortion-free sound out of a CD player. In general, low source impedance under load is important to avoid voltage droop under the audio waveform [this would cause audible distortion if bad enough], and in a really cost reduced power supply, you can get some noise and harmonics form the line to the power for the electronics [generally a 60Hz harmonic hum + other noise from switching power supplies with bad input filters]. Most modest gear is good enough, but in some the power supply is cost reduced. I suspect ALL modest gear is cost-reduced. The question is, do the compromises affect the sound to an extent that is audible? I've never heard a 60Hz hum from a CD player (and I've listened to lots of cheapies), nor have I ever seen published measurements that would suggest that this (or voltage droop) is even an occasional problem. On the other hand, I have seen reviews of $1k CD players that didn't offer flat frequency response. bob |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 1/10/05 8:52 PM, in article , "Tat Chan" wrote: If you don't want the unvarnished truth of the recording - I can't say you are very much interested in high end. How does that explain the reemergence of vinyl, "non wire with gain" valve (tube) amps and SETs? There is even a high-end CD player (can't remember the name off hand) that does not have an anti-aliasing filter in its output stage! Even if you were to ask 'phile and TAS editors (minor demons on this NG) their opinion - would they rather have accurate and revealing or warm and mushy and inaccurate - they would probably say that accuracy was first. It would be interesting to hear the response from the editors of those magazines. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Take a $500 NAD C542 against a Arcam CD192 ($1700) - you will hear a definite improvement more detail, better high end and low end. Will be about 20% or so better, but better overall none the less. I'm sorry, but my own tests have proven this notion to be false. I compared CD players from a broad spectrum of price points and by various manufacturers. All of them were connected to a Denon A/V reciever via optical connection and the Denon was powering Klipsch Reference Series speakers. I was unable to detect ANY difference in sonic quality between the units. Similar tests have been done elsewhere to the same effect. You realize, I hope, that most of use with music foremost (ahead of home theatre) still listen to the analog outputs of their CD players, or at least of an external DAC. Thus the entire design of the unit(s) come into play, not just the digital decoding. The analog sections and power supply design often "make or break" the resulting sound. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"B&D" wrote in message
... On 1/10/05 9:23 PM, in article , " wrote: snip Proper filtering and regulation if using AC, as well as "enough juice" to support your load without appreciable droop [causing audible distortion] will generally give excellent results. It is not really difficult and terribly expensive to do a decent job, but this is one section that is usually shorted in mass market and over designed in high end stuff. Like I said before, batteries are *excellent* power supplies - just kind of a pain to work with in a non portable setup. Some preamps and other high end gear uses batteries (a company called "Edge" does, I believe) - and at least 1 kit I know of. My old Marcoff PPA-2 from 1982 uses 9 volt rechargeable or alkaline...and does a magnificent job of MC amplification with a dead-quiet "black' background. Particularly for this application, batteries make a lot of sense. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| on topic: we need a rec.audio.pro.ot newsgroup! | Pro Audio | |||
| DNC Schedule of Events | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
