Audiophile CD Player? Which One? - Page 4 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews > Audio > CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports > Audiophile CD Player? Which One?

CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports

Tank_PD's Avatar Tank_PD
09:00 PM Liked: 53
post #91 of 891
08-20-2013 | Posts: 828
Joined: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

^Crikey those are expensive! eek.gif

Yes, some of them are quite expensive. Others are considered bargins for their price / performance. Not by me personally, but the rest of the community. I was trying to suggest some starting points. I agree that getting a video / audio player in one is a better deal. I guess I should throw the Panasonic BMP 500. It is down to $200 on Amazon and is a fantastic Blu-ray player and CD player. It will not play SACD though.
arnyk's Avatar arnyk
05:58 AM Liked: 1205
post #92 of 891
08-21-2013 | Posts: 14,530
Joined: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk@pcavtech View Post

Low end systems can be fantastic performers. There's a little $30 digital player called the Sansa Clip. It performs as well as many people's whole system and easily reveals the audible problems in problematical recordings. It sounds (and measures) about as good as a $250 iPod.
That's the low end that is given as example.
I had one of those and my son the second. Both POS. It proves nothing but the bias...

You probably failed to follow the law of transducers - if something sounds like crap its probably due to the transducers (headphones, earphones, speakers) rather than the elecronics.

I admit it, virtually every pair of earphones and headphones I use with my portable players is not the set that came with the player, and they cost several times as much as the player. You probably used the ones that came with the players (Yecch!).
beaveav's Avatar beaveav
04:32 PM Liked: 357
post #93 of 891
08-21-2013 | Posts: 2,021
Joined: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

...
But saying that "everything sounds the same because humans can't hear" is just taking it to extreme...

Yes, yes it is, which is why none of us have said that. Only you have, because you like to create strawmen and then attack them.
SoNic67's Avatar SoNic67
04:50 PM Liked: 29
post #94 of 891
08-21-2013 | Posts: 722
Joined: Aug 2005
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

All the different DAC's wind up producing the same sound in a bias controlled listening test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

How is this different from people who seem to think that everything sounds different?
Is obsession with non-existent audible differences a prerequisite for "hearing the music"?
And also your 'god' keep insisting that $30 is the benchmark of audio quality:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

As long as good digital players sell for less than $30 that claim will be false.

As for the 'science' behind your assumptions - none of you can explain why ABX failed 20000 times in the biggest experiment ever:
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1
Quote:
Swedish Radio developed an elaborate listening methodology called “double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference.” A “subject” (listener) would hear three “objects” (musical presentations); presentation A was always the unprocessed signal, with the listener required to identify if presentation B or C had been processed through the codec.
The test involved 60 “expert” listeners spanning 20,000 evaluations over a period of two years. Swedish Radio announced in 1991 that it had narrowed the field to two codecs, and that “both codecs have now reached a level of performance where they fulfill the EBU requirements for a distribution codec.” In other words, Swedish Radio said the codec was good enough to replace analog FM broadcasts in Europe. This decision was based on data gathered during the 20,000 “double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference” listening trials. (The listening-test methodology and statistical analysis are documented in detail in “Subjective Assessments on Low Bit-Rate Audio Codecs,” by C. Grewin and T. Rydén, published in the proceedings of the 10th International Audio Engineering Society Conference, “Images of Audio.”)
After announcing its decision, Swedish Radio sent a tape of music processed by the selected codec to the late Bart Locanthi, an acknowledged expert in digital audio and chairman of an ad hoc committee formed to independently evaluate low-bit rate codecs. Using the same non-blind observational-listening techniques that audiophiles routinely use to evaluate sound quality, Locanthi instantly identified an artifact of the codec. After Locanthi informed Swedish Radio of the artifact (an idle tone at 1.5kHz), listeners at Swedish Radio also instantly heard the distortion. (Locanthi’s account of the episode is documented in an audio recording played at workshop on low-bit-rate codecs at the 91st AES convention.)
How is it possible that a single listener, using non-blind observational listening techniques, was able to discover—in less than ten minutes—a distortion that escaped the scrutiny of 60 expert listeners, 20,000 trials conducted over a two-year period, and elaborate “double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference” methodology, and sophisticated statistical analysis?
The answer is that blind listening tests fundamentally distort the listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a certain phenomenon.

bo130's Avatar bo130
04:58 PM Liked: 71
post #95 of 891
08-21-2013 | Posts: 521
Joined: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Yes, yes it is, which is why none of us have said that. Only you have, because you like to create strawmen and then attack them.

+1
SoNic67's Avatar SoNic67
05:01 PM Liked: 29
post #96 of 891
08-21-2013 | Posts: 722
Joined: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

+1
Didn't even bother to read my two examples above... nice.
arnyk's Avatar arnyk
05:15 PM Liked: 1205
post #97 of 891
08-21-2013 | Posts: 14,530
Joined: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post


As for the 'science' behind your assumptions - none of you can explain why ABX failed 20000 times in the biggest experiment ever:
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1

That would be a false claim. I've already answered you once. It wasn't an ABX test.

From the book: Consumer.ology: The Market Research Myth, the Truth about Consumers and the ...
By Philip Graves

Page 154

"He described a test that was conducted by Swedish Radio. A careful double blind triple stimulus hidden reference test was constructed"

ABX is not a triple stimulus hidden reference test. In an ABX test there are only 2 different stimuli and the references are not hidden. The test they used is more commonly called ABC/hr. ABC/hr and ABX actually have different intents and are run in a very different way.

And, It wasn't the biggest experiment, ever.

The above is a misrepresentation of the true facts on several other grounds that I can explain if anybody is really interested.

BTW the clarification about the Swedish radio test can also be found here:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/through_a_glass_clearly/index.html

BTW, these tests were done in 1990, so this story is a whopping 23 years old, which I don't see any of the DBT critics clarifying.
beaveav's Avatar beaveav
05:54 PM Liked: 357
post #98 of 891
08-21-2013 | Posts: 2,021
Joined: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Didn't even bother to read my two examples above... nice.

Still don't see where anybody says "everything sounds the same because humans can't hear."
You may be reading that into the posts you read, but it's not what was said.
bo130's Avatar bo130
06:55 PM Liked: 71
post #99 of 891
08-21-2013 | Posts: 521
Joined: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Didn't even bother to read my two examples above... nice.

No, I did. I was agreeing with Beav. smile.gif
mcnarus's Avatar mcnarus
07:57 PM Liked: 337
post #100 of 891
08-21-2013 | Posts: 6,204
Joined: Nov 2007
Yeah, neither of those examples came close to proving his point.

Straw man, indeed.
SoNic67's Avatar SoNic67
08:20 PM Liked: 29
post #101 of 891
08-21-2013 | Posts: 722
Joined: Aug 2005
OK smart guy, you learned a phrase that I can see you don't know what means. So... prove me wrong. Say that there are differences between DAC's that can be heard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

That would be a false claim. I've already answered you once. It wasn't an ABX test.
It was based on the same unfounded supposition that a test need to be un-sighted in order to be valid. That what you always say. Is the basis of all your ABX tests.
And the fact that is old just proves that in 23 years you couldn't explain that organic failure of your supposition.

As for the cited article... it just agrees with what I tried to say by now - ABX tests cannot resolve the minute differences because the adequate part of the brain is not working during an ABX test. You are assuming that the brain is just a linear mechanism:
Quote:
This is one reason why blind listening tests are entirely inappropriate for discriminating differences between components; the procedure removes value and meaning from the musical experience. Such tests force the listener to view the music from the side of the glass case, rather than through the eyepiece. He becomes an observer of, rather than a participant in, the experience. If sonic differences have no musical value, they are not experienced. Consequently, any formalized approach to determine if differences exist—and weighing the significance of those differences—that treats listeners and music as merely "subjects" and "stimuli," is doomed to failure.

FMW's Avatar FMW
03:41 AM Liked: 938
post #102 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 5,763
Joined: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

O

As for the cited article... it just agrees with what I tried to say by now - ABX tests cannot resolve the minute differences because the adequate part of the brain is not working during an ABX test.

What? What does that mean?
67jason's Avatar 67jason
04:26 AM Liked: 795
post #103 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 2,907
Joined: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

OK smart guy, you learned a phrase that I can see you don't know what means. So... prove me wrong. Say that there are differences between DAC's that can be heard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

That would be a false claim. I've already answered you once. It wasn't an ABX test.
It was based on the same unfounded supposition that a test need to be un-sighted in order to be valid. That what you always say. Is the basis of all your ABX tests.
And the fact that is old just proves that in 23 years you couldn't explain that organic failure of your supposition.

As for the cited article... it just agrees with what I tried to say by now - ABX tests cannot resolve the minute differences because the adequate part of the brain is not working during an ABX test. You are assuming that the brain is just a linear mechanism:
Quote:
This is one reason why blind listening tests are entirely inappropriate for discriminating differences between components; the procedure removes value and meaning from the musical experience. Such tests force the listener to view the music from the side of the glass case, rather than through the eyepiece. He becomes an observer of, rather than a participant in, the experience. If sonic differences have no musical value, they are not experienced. Consequently, any formalized approach to determine if differences exist—and weighing the significance of those differences—that treats listeners and music as merely "subjects" and "stimuli," is doomed to failure.

Got any brain scans to back that assumption of yours up?
arnyk's Avatar arnyk
05:16 AM Liked: 1205
post #104 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 14,530
Joined: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

OK smart guy, you learned a phrase that I can see you don't know what means. So... prove me wrong. Say that there are differences between DAC's that can be heard.

There is still equipment around that has DACs that are so bad that you can hear differences that are due to them. An example of this might be the DAC that drives the headphone jack on a cheap CD ROM. DAC technology has improved rapidly over the past 10 years. In 2001 the DACs on PC motherboards often implemented as few as 8 bits. It was easy to hear the degradation that they caused. These days 14-16 bits is the most common, and audible degradation can be very difficult or impossible to identify.
Quote:
It was based on the same unfounded supposition that a test need to be un-sighted in order to be valid.

The supposition that test need to be un-sighted in order to be valid.is a creation yours, not mine.

It is an easily demonstrated fact that listener bias, if not controlled, can seriously impact the reliability of a listening test. Bias comes from many sources, none of which are controlled during casual amateur audiophile listening evaluations and those done in audio stores. Bias controls can take many forms, with so-called blinding being just one of them.

Perhaps the most obvious example of sighted bias is a listening test that appears to be a comparison between two amplifiers, but is in fact a comparison of an amplifier with itself. Listeners generally report audible differences, even though the comparison involves.just one amplifier. Sighted bias can cause people to perceive two different sounds, even though they are absolutely the same amplifier and therefore the same sound.

When you examine other sources of bias such as failure to match levels, again we set up a listening test that appears to be a comparison between two amplifiers, but is in fact a comparison of an amplifier with itself with different gain settings. People find it easy to identify the "sound of the two amplifiers", even though its the same amplifier.
Quote:
That what you always say. Is the basis of all your ABX tests.

Prove me wrong.
Quote:
And the fact that is old just proves that in 23 years you couldn't explain that organic failure of your supposition.

What is unclear about the fact that the Swedish Radio tests did not involve ABX? The evidence that has been quoted here by DBT critics is based on Robert Harley's erroneous and incomplete report. Interestingly enough not even Robert Harley or John Atkinson make the error that has been made here - calling the Swedish Radio tests ABX tests. The Stereophile aritcle I quoted even described them in technical terms that appear to be over many people's heads - triple stimulus hidden reference. Do you actually know what those 4 words mean, and their implications?
Quote:
As for the cited article... it just agrees with what I tried to say by now - ABX tests cannot resolve the minute differences because the adequate part of the brain is not working during an ABX test.

One little problem that appears to be over your head - the Swedish Radio tests did not involve ABX.
Quote:
You are assuming that the brain is just a linear mechanism:

Prove it.
Quote:
This is one reason why blind listening tests are entirely inappropriate for discriminating differences between components; the procedure removes value and meaning from the musical experience.

Prove it.
Quote:
Such tests force the listener to view the music from the side of the glass case, rather than through the eyepiece.
Quote:
He becomes an observer of, rather than a participant in, the experience.

Prove it.
Quote:
If sonic differences have no musical value, they are not experienced.

That is an easily debunked false claim. If perception of musical value is necessary for us to experience recordings, why are we able to experience recordings of spoken word and sound effects?
Quote:
Consequently, any formalized approach to determine if differences exist—and weighing the significance of those differences—that treats listeners and music as merely "subjects" and "stimuli," is doomed to failure.

Prove it. And while you are at it, prove that listening evaluations done by audiophiles and high end equipment reviewers is somehow different.

I can tell that that you never read Robert Harley's "Listener's Manifesto" Among other things it argues that high end equipment reviewing follows a formalized approach.

See Robert Harley's "The Listeners' Manifesto," Stereophile, Vol.15 No.1, January 1992, p.111 or

Author: Harley, Robert
Affiliation: Stereophile Magazine, Santa Fe, NM
AES Convention:91 (October 1991) Paper Number:3176 Import into BibTeX
Subject:Listening Tests

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5540
SoNic67's Avatar SoNic67
10:41 AM Liked: 29
post #105 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 722
Joined: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Prove it. And while you are at it, prove that listening evaluations done by audiophiles and high end equipment reviewers is somehow different.
You didn't prove your assumption. I would say that was enough de-bunked by the 20k failed experiments. You can cry that those are "not ABX" but they are really the same experiment.

You are still living in a mechanical Universe, that brain has no relevance. Maybe you can read bout other false assumptions:

http://www.naturalnews.com/041736_modern_science_false_assumptions_consciousness.html
arnyk's Avatar arnyk
11:31 AM Liked: 1205
post #106 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 14,530
Joined: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You didn't prove your assumption.

My assumption is not an assumption. Sighted bias is a readily observable fact. You are asking me to prove something that is as obvious and repeatable as the rising of the sun.
Quote:
I would say that was enough de-bunked by the 20k failed experiments. You can cry that those are "not ABX" but they are really the same experiment.

Rational explanation with documentation apparently has no effect on you.
Quote:
You are still living in a mechanical Universe, that brain has no relevance. Maybe you can read bout other false assumptions:

http://www.naturalnews.com/041736_modern_science_false_assumptions_consciousness.html

The above is just a collection of unproven and some unprovable assumptions. Further more, several are false claims as presented, because they are not universal claims of modern science.

I'll reproduce them here for others to entertain themselves with:

"
False Assumption #1) The universe is mechanical
False Assumption #2) All matter is unconscious
False Assumption #3) The total amount of matter and energy is always a constant
False Assumption #4) The laws of nature are fixed
False Assumption #5) Nature is purposeless, with no goal or direction
False Assumption #6) All biological inheritance is material, carried in DNA
False Assumption #7) There is no such thing as a "mind" other than an artifact of brain function
False Assumption #8) Memories are stored chemically in the brain and disappear at death
False Assumption #9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory
False Assumption #10) Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works
"

One obvious false claim is #6. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extranuclear_inheritance

DNA is found in the nucleus of cells. The above article lists 2 kinds of extranuclear inheritance or inheritance that passed by means outside the nucleus of the cell::
"
Extranuclear Inheritance of Organelles
Extranuclear Inheritance of Parasites
"

and 3 types of extranuclear inheritance:

"
Vegetative segregation
Uniparental inheritance
Biparental inheritance
"

The worst thing about the article is that it makes the false assumption that just because science finds an answer that all other answers are automatically excluded. That's not how science works. All findings of science are provisional until better answers are found. For example, just because we currently don't know of any matter that is not part of a living thing has consciousness doesn't mean that such a thing will never be discovered.

Your article is not only free of reasoned, evidentiary support for its assertions, but some if not all of its assertions are themselves based on an incorrect understanding of modern science.
mcnarus's Avatar mcnarus
11:55 AM Liked: 337
post #107 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 6,204
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote:
ABX is not a triple stimulus hidden reference test. In an ABX test there are only 2 different stimuli and the references are not hidden. The test they used is more commonly called ABC/hr. ABC/hr and ABX actually have different intents and are run in a very different way.
In particular, the usual intent of ABC/hr is NOT to determine whether a difference is audible. It is used in cases (like tests of lossy codecs) where it is assumed that differences are generally audible, and you are trying to determine how great the perceived difference is. So to claim that ABC/hr results show that "people couldn't hear a difference in the test," as Harley does, is to misinterpret or —more likely in his case—misunderstand the test.

It is not at all surprising that Harley has done this. He is a pathological moron who knows little of audio beyond what he makes up. The first edition of his book was riddled with errors. It's no wonder he had to self-publish it. No legitimate publishing house would touch it or him with a ten-foot pole. Which says something about the publishers of S-pile and TAS.
arnyk's Avatar arnyk
01:07 PM Liked: 1205
post #108 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 14,530
Joined: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Quote:
ABX is not a triple stimulus hidden reference test. In an ABX test there are only 2 different stimuli and the references are not hidden. The test they used is more commonly called ABC/hr. ABC/hr and ABX actually have different intents and are run in a very different way.
In particular, the usual intent of ABC/hr is NOT to determine whether a difference is audible. It is used in cases (like tests of lossy codecs) where it is assumed that differences are generally audible, and you are trying to determine how great the perceived difference is. So to claim that ABC/hr results show that "people couldn't hear a difference in the test," as Harley does, is to misinterpret or —more likely in his case—misunderstand the test.

That's exactly right. ABC/hr is very good for what it is commonly used for, which is to rank coders in terms of their degradation. It is a complex test with a more complex statistical analysis load than ABX if all you want to know is whether something is audible.
Quote:
It is not at all surprising that Harley has done this. He is a pathological moron who knows little of audio beyond what he makes up. The first edition of his book was riddled with errors. It's no wonder he had to self-publish it. No legitimate publishing house would touch it or him with a ten-foot pole. Which says something about the publishers of S-pile and TAS.

Furthermore, it appears that all online copies of Harley' "Listener's Manifesto" that are under the control of Harley or Stereophile have mysteriously gone missing. Lots of broken links! I guess they got tired of defending the numerous errors contained therein.
mcnarus's Avatar mcnarus
01:42 PM Liked: 337
post #109 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 6,204
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote:
Furthermore, it appears that all online copies of Harley' "Listener's Manifesto" that are under the control of Harley or Stereophile have mysteriously gone missing. Lots of broken links! I guess they got tired of defending the numerous errors contained therein.
Wasn't that originally an AES conference paper?* AES claims copyright over those, I believe. It wouldn't surprise me if they forced S-pile to take it down.


*Proving that somebody at AES has a sense of humor!
arnyk's Avatar arnyk
05:58 PM Liked: 1205
post #110 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 14,530
Joined: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Quote:
Furthermore, it appears that all online copies of Harley' "Listener's Manifesto" that are under the control of Harley or Stereophile have mysteriously gone missing. Lots of broken links! I guess they got tired of defending the numerous errors contained therein.
Wasn't that originally an AES conference paper?* AES claims copyright over those, I believe. It wouldn't surprise me if they forced S-pile to take it down.

*Proving that somebody at AES has a sense of humor!

I don't think it was the AES objecting that caused them to be taken down, because the paper was up for years on both Atkinson's and Harley's web site.
bwv1080's Avatar bwv1080
07:56 PM Liked: 46
post #111 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 310
Joined: Aug 2009

Tank_PD's Avatar Tank_PD
11:26 PM Liked: 53
post #112 of 891
08-22-2013 | Posts: 828
Joined: Jun 2011
Well, now I know why people say stay clear of the 2-channel forum. OP is long gone.
arnyk's Avatar arnyk
06:33 AM Liked: 1205
post #113 of 891
08-23-2013 | Posts: 14,530
Joined: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tank_PD View Post

Well, now I know why people say stay clear of the 2-channel forum. OP is long gone.

What would you prefer?
67jason's Avatar 67jason
06:52 AM Liked: 795
post #114 of 891
08-23-2013 | Posts: 2,907
Joined: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tank_PD View Post

Well, now I know why people say stay clear of the 2-channel forum. OP is long gone.

Good thing for you that you are not in the 2 channel forum wink.gif
CruelInventions's Avatar CruelInventions
08:17 AM Liked: 219
post #115 of 891
08-23-2013 | Posts: 4,626
Joined: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tank_PD View Post

Well, now I know why people say stay clear of the 2-channel forum. OP is long gone.

I think you may be projecting. OP asked several questions throughout and received answers. It's not like he stomped off in a huff or anything. Perhaps he's done. Threads often take on a life of their own as the discussion veers off in multiple directions. Welcome to the intranets!
diomania's Avatar diomania
09:40 AM Liked: 49
post #116 of 891
08-23-2013 | Posts: 1,389
Joined: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

I think you may be projecting.
He is a forum owner who just wants to publicly express his concern. I've seen posts like that pop up here and there. There must be multiple owner of this forum...
mcnarus's Avatar mcnarus
09:55 AM Liked: 337
post #117 of 891
08-23-2013 | Posts: 6,204
Joined: Nov 2007
Quote:
I don't think it was the AES objecting that caused them to be taken down, because the paper was up for years on both Atkinson's and Harley's web site.
Well, it wouldn't have been posted online until some years after the initial print publication. It's quite possible that the powers-that-be at AES were not aware of it immediately.
Tank_PD's Avatar Tank_PD
11:30 AM Liked: 53
post #118 of 891
08-23-2013 | Posts: 828
Joined: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

He is a forum owner who just wants to publicly express his concern. I've seen posts like that pop up here and there. There must be multiple owner of this forum...

Yes, just expressing my concern. Carry on. smile.gif
SoNic67's Avatar SoNic67
05:38 PM Liked: 29
post #119 of 891
08-23-2013 | Posts: 722
Joined: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Yeah, neither of those examples came close to proving his point.
Straw man, indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Audiophile mythology aside, there really is no such thing as an audiophile CD player anymore. Or rather, there really is no such thing as a non-audiophile CD player anymore. An $80 DVD player will sound as good as $10,000 Stereophile Class A doorstop
So I guess this is not the same as "all players sound the same"? Delusional anybody?
esh516's Avatar esh516
06:36 PM Liked: 44
post #120 of 891
08-23-2013 | Posts: 607
Joined: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post


So I guess this is not the same as "all players sound the same"? Delusional anybody?
...wow..sorry to disagree..my oppo bd105 runs..not walks all over my old cheap Sony CD player..sounds completely different.... I'm sure its the improvement in DAC chips now days and the transports have improved drastically.. Smooth,quiet,fast...compared to cluncky,loud flimsy and slow..
Do you really seriously think all disc players sound the same?
My other marantz player even sounds very different from the oppo...the marantz is very warm..laid back..no depth to the music..unlike the oppo that is very revealing.. Transparent...excellent front to back depth..its breathtaking!
Tags: Oppo Bdp 95 Blu Ray Player , Samsung Bd D5100 Blu Ray Disc Player

Gear in this thread - D5100 by PriceGrabber.com
Reply CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3