best sounding cd player - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 79 Old 04-03-2006, 11:56 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
jason forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: edmonton,ab canada
Posts: 170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i was wondering what the best cd player ever made was, i had heard it was the linn or the wadia.(price no object)
jason forster is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 79 Old 04-04-2006, 07:24 AM
Member
 
Eddiemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Northbrook, IL
Posts: 127
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Linn CD12, probably a good shout to be the best.
$20,000 it should be.

'When Fascism Comes to This Country, It Will Be Wrapped in the Flag Carrying a Cross'
Sinclair Lewis.
Eddiemc is offline  
post #3 of 79 Old 04-04-2006, 07:41 AM
 
PULLIAMM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 8,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I suppose there may be some golden-eared types out there who hear (or think they hear) differences between CD players. Personally, I believe that if you exclude portables and el-cheapo off-brand players, any differences in sound are negligible. I think that paying more than $300 or so is a waste unless it is mainly looks and/or build quality that you are buying.
PULLIAMM is offline  
post #4 of 79 Old 04-04-2006, 07:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Anthony A.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada EH?
Posts: 2,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
wow, only 1 post and already its turning into a debate. i know, i know, rat shack speakers are the same as my wilson x2's. i just had an extra $15k to burn, so i thought that i would waste it on the speakers, even though they are the same sonically. that goes for the cdp also. my cdrom on my computer bests by emm labs player. again, so much money to burn!!!!!!

Anthony A. is offline  
post #5 of 79 Old 04-04-2006, 08:16 AM
 
PULLIAMM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 8,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony A.
wow, only 1 post and already its turning into a debate. i know, i know, rat shack speakers are the same as my wilson x2's. i just had an extra $15k to burn, so i thought that i would waste it on the speakers, even though they are the same sonically. that goes for the cdp also. my cdrom on my computer bests by emm labs player. again, so much money to burn!!!!!!
My comment applies only to CD players. If two CD players both accurately reconstruct the analog waveform, they will sound the same. There are vastly larger audible differences among speakers. There are also differences among amps (at a given power rating), though these are much smaller than for speakers.
PULLIAMM is offline  
post #6 of 79 Old 04-04-2006, 08:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Oh come now Anthony, you don't have either of those! To the original poster, you'll have to define best as in is it your goal to have as near perfect reconstruction of the digital signal or do you want it embellished?

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #7 of 79 Old 04-04-2006, 06:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
Capfacsurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Malibu / Nags Head
Posts: 742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The best sounding CD player will be the one YOU prefer. When I was looking for a new cdp, I auditioned a number of players, and brought my two favorites home to see how they sounded in my system. My son and I, even my girlfriend, could tell the difference between the two players. We hooked them up to my pre/pro with the same model of interconnects, and though the differences were subtle, they were audible. We made our choice based upon what sounded the best to us.

So, OP, if you are looking for "the best cdp", do your homework. Keep an open mind, listen to as many players as you can, and bring your favorites home two at a time for an A/B test.

After you do that, post again and tell us which cdp YOU think is the best.

With my system, In my room, to my ears......
Capfacsurf is offline  
post #8 of 79 Old 04-04-2006, 08:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 8,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
My comment applies only to CD players. If two CD players both accurately reconstruct the analog waveform, they will sound the same. There are vastly larger audible differences among speakers. There are also differences among amps (at a given power rating), though these are much smaller than for speakers.
While I agree with your statement that there are substantial differences in SQ due to speakers, I disagree completely that all CD players sound the same. I personally have dealt with this issue in working toward improving my system. Other than exclusivity in buying an "esoteric" player, if they all sound the same, why would someone spend thousands, when they could spend hundreds? I ask myself these things as I have upgraded my system, including speakers, amplification, room treatments, etc.

In reading about high end, and usually higher-priced gear, I decided to find out for myself, being an engineer and I think a fairly objective buyer. I arranged for an in-home demo of a high end player compared to my present one. Using the same amp, same speakers, same preamp, the "high end" player most definitely sounded different than mine, clearer, more detailed, and with deeper soundstage. I was not looking for a specific outcome in favor of the expensive player nor trying to justify an existing buying decision. I was really expecting to hear no or negligible differences, certainly if that were the case, I wouldn't have to think about another purchase. But I could not deny that what I heard from the one player was better than what I already had.

The high end player has a triple DAC implementation, compared to the single DAC used in my universal player. There are other differences relating to opamps used, power supply, oversampling/upsampling, digital filters. For me to accept your statement that all players sound the same, I must accept the premise that my universal player did not accurately reproduce the analog waveform. Since both players use the same identical DAC, the BB1738, if one is not reproducing the sound correctly, neither would be. Since my player is not a portable or el-cheapo off-brand player, the Pioneer Elite 59AVi that costs $1K, that rules out that part of your argument as well. Subtle though they may be, depending on the rest of the system, there are differences to be heard and enjoyed.

You can believe what u want. I wanted to believe it, but was proven wrong in my own system. And I do not believe you have to be a "golden-eared" one to hear those differences. If you are comparing players using lower-end, limited range speakers, you are probably right. Otherwise, folks wanting to improve their sound should find out for themselves, and not accept anyone's preconceived ideas as their own, including mine.

Also, the logic escapes me why u would accept that amps can sound different (another controversial position the objectivist crowd tends not to accept) but deny that digital-to-analog devices could also sound different. Again, I don't think one should accept any dogma as absolute audio truth, but listen for themselves. Comparisons can be done.

ss9001

Steve
ss9001 is offline  
post #9 of 79 Old 04-07-2006, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capfacsurf

So, OP, if you are looking for "the best cdp", do your homework. Keep an open mind, listen to as many players as you can, and bring your favorites home two at a time for an A/B test.
...which, in order to be reliable indicators of *real* difference, should be at least blind, and preferably double-blind. That pesky *science* stuff again.

If such a test indicates a difference, it might be due to something as simple as variation in output levels between the players.

If you aren't up to such a test, then by all means just go with the one you 'feel' is better. Chance are good that there's no real audible difference between them anyway. At which point you can focus on features, finish, bragging rights, price, and other important stuff.
krabapple is offline  
post #10 of 79 Old 04-07-2006, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001
While I agree with your statement that there are substantial differences in SQ due to speakers, I disagree completely that all CD players sound the same.
I don't think anyone said all CD players sound the same, including the post you replied to.


Quote:
I personally have dealt with this issue in working toward improving my system. Other than exclusivity in buying an "esoteric" player, if they all sound the same, why would someone spend thousands, when they could spend hundreds?

LOL. Indeed. Imagine if it turned out that $10,000 CDP was sonically indistinguishable from a $200 one. Oh, the embarrassment.


Quote:
I ask myself these things as I have upgraded my system, including speakers, amplification, room treatments, etc.
Altering speakers and room treatments are certainly likely to make a real audible difference...far more so than changing CDPs. This is predictable simply from the principles behind the construction and operation of speakers, room treatments, and CDPs.

Quote:
In reading about high end, and usually higher-priced gear, I decided to find out for myself, being an engineer and I think a fairly objective buyer. I arranged for an in-home demo of a high end player compared to my present one. Using the same amp, same speakers, same preamp, the "high end" player most definitely sounded different than mine, clearer, more detailed, and with deeper soundstage. I was not looking for a specific outcome in favor of the expensive player nor trying to justify an existing buying decision. I was really expecting to hear no or negligible differences, certainly if that were the case, I wouldn't have to think about another purchase. But I could not deny that what I heard from the one player was better than what I already had.
Again and again, even 'pros' in the recording industry are surprised at what 'sounds' different in sighted comparisons, only to sound 'the same' once the identity of the gear was hidden from them. It doesn't matter if you were consciously 'looking' for a specific outcome or not. Psychological bias remains in play! It would be great if we could somehow 'will' it out of existence -- for one thing, it would streamline the scientific discovery process immensely -- but that's not possible. Then there's also trivial things like output level differences, which can also bias a person in favor or against a given player. So level matching and blinding are key elements of verifying that your 'sighted' impression reflects real audible difference. Alternately, you can have two CDPs professionally bench-tested, to see if they measure so differently that audible difference is likely. Either of these routes will give you a more accurate, solid 'proof' of difference than sighted A/B.

Let me emphasize: this doesn't mean all CDPs sound the same. It just means that determing whether any two CDPs really sound different, is not as straightforward as one might think.
krabapple is offline  
post #11 of 79 Old 04-07-2006, 12:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
whoaru99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Accuracy can be measured and proven - even the cheapest of the cheap computer CD drives very accurately read/convey data.

OTOH, what sounds the best is purely subjective and is an infinite debate.

I (believe) I have heard differences between internal and external dacs, and between analog outputs. However for me to say I heard differences between different players used as transports feeding the same external dac would be a stretch. They all sounded the same to me that way.

Just because there is a knob doesn't mean you should turn it.
whoaru99 is offline  
post #12 of 79 Old 04-07-2006, 12:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99
Accuracy can be measured and proven - even the cheapest of the cheap computer CD drives very accurately read/convey data.

OTOH, what sounds the best is purely subjective and is an infinite debate.
Yes, and because the same CDP, presented twice, can be 'heard' and reported as two different players with different sound quality (e.g., in a 'phantom switch' setup), what are we to conclude about the inherent reliability of purely subjective reports?
krabapple is offline  
post #13 of 79 Old 04-07-2006, 01:05 PM
 
PULLIAMM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 8,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
If you start bragging about your new $10,000 CD player, whether people will look at you with admiration or like a complete idiot depends on the company you keep.
PULLIAMM is offline  
post #14 of 79 Old 04-07-2006, 07:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 8,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple
Altering speakers and room treatments are certainly likely to make a real audible difference...far more so than changing CDPs. This is predictable simply from the principles behind the construction and operation of speakers, room treatments, and CDPs.

So level matching and blinding are key elements of verifying that your 'sighted' impression reflects real audible difference. Alternately, you can have two CDPs professionally bench-tested, to see if they measure so differently that audible difference is likely. Either of these routes will give you a more accurate, solid 'proof' of difference than sighted A/Bs

Let me emphasize: this doesn't mean all CDPs sound the same. It just means that determing whether any two CDPs really sound different, is not as straightforward as one might think.
I agree with your statements, especially about speakers & room treatments, and from personal experience, know both made the most improvements for me, too.

That said, in trying to evaluate these 2 players, one I owned and the more expensive one I didn't, and knowing output levels make a difference, I did try to match sound output as close as I could. While I cannot claim accuracy was as tight as some objectivists would claim is needed, I thought it was pretty close, close enough that I could not say one was louder than the other. Oh yeah, I also asked my wife to do a un-sighted comparison, again, being an engr-type, wanting to eliminate my own psychological bias, if any. She is not that interested in audio/music, doesn't "get into" hi-fi listening, so I thought she could about as un-biased as I could ask for. Without knowing which player was used, she picked the Sony 9000ES I was demo-ing over my Pioneer Elite 59AVi as better sounding 2 times out of 3. Interesting...?

Was this a scientific test? Of course not. Was it totally conclusive, since she picked my player once for one song? No. But it told me that not all differences are imagined or due to wanting something to sound better. Just my 2 cents on what happened in my home.

Also, relative to the original topic, I don't believe one can say what really is a best sounding anything, including a CD player. Too many variables, especially one's own hearing. One just has to go try and listen for themselves.

ss9001

Steve
ss9001 is offline  
post #15 of 79 Old 04-07-2006, 07:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 8,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 250 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM
If you start bragging about your new $10,000 CD player, whether people will look at you with admiration or like a complete idiot depends on the company you keep.
The specific price of the player is not what is at issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRABAPPLE
I don't think anyone said all CD players sound the same, including the post you replied to.
Let's see..

Quote:
I believe that if you exclude portables and el-cheapo off-brand players, any differences in sound are negligible. I think that paying more than $300 or so is a waste unless it is mainly looks and/or build quality that you are buying.
and:

Quote:
If two CD players both accurately reconstruct the analog waveform, they will sound the same.
Maybe not, but they are pretty close to saying it, for all practical purposes, and reveal psychological biases on the part of the poster, just as much as those who have bought a $10,000 player and justifying their purchase. The bias is that an "expensive" player much more than $300 cannot be capable of more accurately reproducing the waveform than one costing less than $300. What is the objective basis for that evaluation and price? Is the poster an electrical engineer, audio designer, physicist? Are there no more higher quality components or circuit designs than what $300 is capable of buying? Are those statements any more objective than the insistence on double-blind, level matched testing for any valid comparison? I disagree with the statements, because I disagree with the biased, implied assumptions behind them that seem to be negative to those who might want to spend more than what he/she would want to spend.

Also, please note I did not recommend any specific player, price range or said an expensive player HAS to sound better than one costing less. I did say one has to listen for themselves and not just take a recommendation as what's best for that person's needs, room and speakers. I did provide a personal experience to support my own observations.

Which comments are more helpful or honest is for the OP to judge.

ss9001

Steve
ss9001 is offline  
post #16 of 79 Old 04-07-2006, 09:31 PM
Member
 
Rob Calderon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Antonio TX.
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Jason, Cap said it best, as you can see it a very personal thing like speakers. I am also looking for a great sounding one so I try to audition the ones I can and I get the one I like/can afford and it becomes the best sounding one because it's the one i'll listen to almost every day. The brands you mention are reputable but you may also find a Sony,Denon or a Pioneer that also sounds great. Many of the high end manufacturers use internal components from these companies. Try to compare as many as you can and you'll find one you really like...
RC

It's Better To Burn out
Than to Fade Away...!
Rob Calderon is offline  
post #17 of 79 Old 04-08-2006, 04:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001
I agree with your statements, especially about speakers & room treatments, and from personal experience, know both made the most improvements for me, too.

That said, in trying to evaluate these 2 players, one I owned and the more expensive one I didn't, and knowing output levels make a difference, I did try to match sound output as close as I could. While I cannot claim accuracy was as tight as some objectivists would claim is needed, I thought it was pretty close, close enough that I could not say one was louder than the other. Oh yeah, I also asked my wife to do a un-sighted comparison, again, being an engr-type, wanting to eliminate my own psychological bias, if any. She is not that interested in audio/music, doesn't "get into" hi-fi listening, so I thought she could about as un-biased as I could ask for. Without knowing which player was used, she picked the Sony 9000ES I was demo-ing over my Pioneer Elite 59AVi as better sounding 2 times out of 3. Interesting...?

Was this a scientific test? Of course not. Was it totally conclusive, since she picked my player once for one song? No. But it told me that not all differences are imagined or due to wanting something to sound better. Just my 2 cents on what happened in my home.
Indeed, 2/3 correct is readily achieved by chance, not to mention the lack of double-blinding. Your 'test' was in fact *far* from conclusive, yet you concluded from *it* that not all differences are imagined. That's kind of odd reasoning.

Now of course it's reasonable to believe that there are real differences out there. But yours isn't the sort of evidence to support that belief. You're still at square one, though you seem to think you've established grounds for a hypothesis.

Try level matching all four channels of both players to within 0.5 dB at 1 kHz, then having your wife, or youself, identify the player 25 times, blind. If you or she gets a score that has a p < 0.05 (which IIRC would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 21/25 correct) , then you can start proposing a real difference from your test results.




Quote:
Also, relative to the original topic, I don't believe one can say what really is a best sounding anything, including a CD player. Too many variables, especially one's own hearing. One just has to go try and listen for themselves.

ss9001
'Best' is entirely subjective unless there is an objective reference to compare to. But I'm talking first about firmly estblishing that there is a *difference*....to players have to sound different in order for one of them to sound
'better'.
krabapple is offline  
post #18 of 79 Old 04-08-2006, 04:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Maybe not, but they are pretty close to saying it, for all practical purposes
No, you say that, but the fact that the people you quote include qualifiers is *important*. No one says all CD players sound the same. They are saying that CD players which do X properly sound the same.


Quote:
and reveal psychological biases on the part of the poster, just as much as those who have bought a $10,000 player and justifying their purchase. The bias is that an "expensive" player much more than $300 cannot be capable of more accurately reproducing the waveform than one costing less than $300. What is the objective basis for that evaluation and price?
No one says that, though. The question is how *likely* there is to be a difference, based on what is known about digital audio and the technology involved.

(In fact, there are expensive players such as the Wadias that use spline filters, which stand a decent chance of sounding different from others. Whether that sound is *better* (or more accurate) is another story. )


Quote:
Is the poster an electrical engineer, audio designer, physicist? Are there no more higher quality components or circuit designs than what $300 is capable of buying?
No one has said there aren't. The question is at what point the difference stops being audible . Also, there is no direct correlation between retail price and component quality; a large company for example can practice economies of scale, offering very high-performance components in relatively cheap mass produced products.

Quote:
Are those statements any more objective than the insistence on double-blind, level matched testing for any valid comparison? I disagree with the statements, because I disagree with the biased, implied assumptions behind them that seem to be negative to those who might want to spend more than what he/she would want to spend.

Double blind level matched comparison is the scientific gold standard -- there is no reason not to insist upon it, given the level of certainty being touted by many audiophiles. And the statement that two players that correctly reconstruct (I would add 'and output') the waveforms should sound the same, is entirely reasonable from physical principles.


Quote:
Also, please note I did not recommend any specific player, price range or said an expensive player HAS to sound better than one costing less. I did say one has to listen for themselves and not just take a recommendation as what's best for that person's needs, room and speakers. I did provide a personal experience to support my own observations.

And I say, as most scientists would, that listening 'sighted' is going to be at best
a very 'noisy' way of getting at truth. The mistake audiophiles make over and over again is assuming their 'personal experience' maps to truth, just because it's personal. They experience a difference, and conclude it's a real difference in the gear. They make dubious conclusions about causes based on insufficient evidence from experience. They don't test their conclusions properly . If it were really that easy -- what you believe about what you perceive, must be the correct answer -- then scientific discovery -- which is really the concerted attempt to build TRUE models of the physical world -- would be a snap.
krabapple is offline  
post #19 of 79 Old 04-10-2006, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jonomega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 3,518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I could easily tell the difference between a Cambridge Audio Azur 540C and Rotel RCD-1072. With that said, it was pretty minor compared to changes in speaker. I do not believe I would be able to hear much difference between cd players used as transports, however when using their analog outs, there is a definate difference.
Jonomega is offline  
post #20 of 79 Old 04-10-2006, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonomega
I could easily tell the difference between a Cambridge Audio Azur 540C and Rotel RCD-1072.
Well, yeah, people often report 'easy to tell' differences, sighted. As evidence, it doesn't suffice..it would still require measurements, or blind re-trials, to back up. Differences can be reported as 'easy to tell' even when the same device is presented twice without the listener realizing it. Our powers of persuading ourselves of stuff that isn't true, are enormous.
krabapple is offline  
post #21 of 79 Old 04-10-2006, 06:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cpu8088's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: surrounded by speakers
Posts: 3,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
"No one says all CD players sound the same. "

there are always the deaf and the hearing impaired

"As evidence, it doesn't suffice..it would still require measurements, or blind re-trials, to back up."

which equipment you selected after you have done measurements or blind re-trials?

i do not discount blind tests, but can anyone quote me sources that this has been done with cd player/transport properly in audio field?

cpu8088 - OLD and SLOW !!!
cpu8088 is offline  
post #22 of 79 Old 04-11-2006, 05:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
however when using their analog outs, there is a definate difference.
Then it would behoove one to determine if the audible differences were due to level mismatches between the players or if one or perhaps both had varying degrees of FR deviations especially in the bass regions due to ageing of the coupling capacitors.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #23 of 79 Old 04-12-2006, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JorgeLopez11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: MEXICO CITY
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
One of the best sounding players I've ever heard is the Wadia 861. I know this is a completely subjective opinion, so please consider it as a subjective opinion mainly based on my 41 years old ears.

Nevertheless, I´ve found extremely difficult to recognize this Wadia player when compared to a Berendsen CD player, the Rega Planet CD player or my modified Rotel 1072 (sighted tests in all ocasions).

The subtle difference I believe I heard (if there's a difference indeed) might be due to the higher output of the Wadia player.

One more thing: please refrain your initial impulse to ask whether I used "high resolution equipment" or not and things like that.

To your peace of mind, I've used my own Rotel power amplifiers, the Oddisey Tempest preamp and Oddissey Stratos Extreme power amplifier, the Pass Labs Aleph 30 and X250.5 power amplifiers, Pass Labs X0 preamplifier, an old Harman Kardon Citation II tube amplifier, Onix and Jolida Tube integrated amplifiers, and some more that now escape my memory.

Are you going to ask about cables? Well, I have used mainly my Belden cables for the speakers and Groneberg, Vampire and Audioquest cable interconnects.

So, what is the best sounding player? This is a difficult question to answer.
JorgeLopez11 is offline  
post #24 of 79 Old 04-12-2006, 01:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Perhaps it is the one which one has budgeted for?

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #25 of 79 Old 04-12-2006, 01:47 PM
 
PULLIAMM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 8,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
Perhaps it is the one which one has budgeted for?
As far as that goes, if I had $5,000 for a new 2-channel system I would probably spend around $1,000-$1,500 total for amplification plus a CD player and the rest on speakers.
If I had $10,000, I would still probably spend around $1,000-$1,500 for CD+amplification and the rest on speakers.
(In my case, this is all strictly hypothetical. My 2-channel system actually cost less than $1,500 altogether. :D )
PULLIAMM is offline  
post #26 of 79 Old 04-13-2006, 08:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dsmith901's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 8,970
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 20
IMO DACs and the analog circuitry in a CDP can provide audible differences, especially if one has sufficiently accurate and transparent equipment downstream (preamp/amp/speakers). The Linn Sondek CD ($20K) used the 20 bit BB 1702k DAC which is also used in my H/k FL8550 ($485) though not select grade. When my 8550 was in for repair of the infamous disc-read error I used a H/k FL8380 with 18 bit BB DACS and I could hear a slight difference, enough that I was relieved when my 8550 was returned. Now that I have employed a Benchmark DAC-1 their is a very noticeable difference (improvement) in resolution, noise floor, and bass in my system. While my 8550 was being repaired I also tried that cheap RCA CDP changer that the usually reliable "Sensible Sound" praised when they too claimed that all CDPs sound alike and I was disgusted at how bad it sounded. Like everything else in audio, with CD players you must let your own ears be your guide.

"The truth is out there!"
dsmith901 is offline  
post #27 of 79 Old 04-13-2006, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsmith901
IMO DACs and the analog circuitry in a CDP can provide audible differences, especially if one has sufficiently accurate and transparent equipment downstream (preamp/amp/speakers). The Linn Sondek CD ($20K) used the 20 bit BB 1702k DAC which is also used in my H/k FL8550 ($485) though not select grade. When my 8550 was in for repair of the infamous disc-read error I used a H/k FL8380 with 18 bit BB DACS and I could hear a slight difference, enough that I was relieved when my 8550 was returned. Now that I have employed a Benchmark DAC-1 their is a very noticeable difference (improvement) in resolution, noise floor, and bass in my system. While my 8550 was being repaired I also tried that cheap RCA CDP changer that the usually reliable "Sensible Sound" praised when they too claimed that all CDPs sound alike and I was disgusted at how bad it sounded. Like everything else in audio, with CD players you must let your own ears be your guide.

I don't know about the really cheap players, but I have been able to tell little if any difference in the various players I have owned over the years. I know that this is about CD players but right now I have a CAL 2500 DVD player that the audio rags said had just great audio-can't hear a difference. I previously had an EAD, haven't heard any difference. In the past, I have had several different CD players from medium price to fairly expensive. I have never been able to hear much difference. Maybe i am deaf. Buy the way, ironically the best CD player I ever owned (a number years ago) from a mechanical standpoint was a JVC Superdigifine 1010. It was bought by an audiophile who knew the reputation and was going to use it as a transport. Even the CAl has a flimsy plastic tray. Anyway, my 2 cents.

P.S. The second generation Sony I had was also built like a tank. Also, it still sounds the same to me as all the rest believe it or not and it is still going strong after what has it been more than 20 years I believe. So much for don't know how long they will last thing.
Randybes is offline  
post #28 of 79 Old 04-13-2006, 10:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsmith901
IMO DACs and the analog circuitry in a CDP can provide audible differences, especially if one has sufficiently accurate and transparent equipment downstream (preamp/amp/speakers).
This is a reasonable claim, but the proof of it won't come from this sort of evidence:

Quote:
The Linn Sondek CD ($20K) used the 20 bit BB 1702k DAC which is also used in my H/k FL8550 ($485) though not select grade. When my 8550 was in for repair of the infamous disc-read error I used a H/k FL8380 with 18 bit BB DACS and I could hear a slight difference, enough that I was relieved when my 8550 was returned. Now that I have employed a Benchmark DAC-1 their is a very noticeable difference (improvement) in resolution, noise floor, and bass in my system. While my 8550 was being repaired I also tried that cheap RCA CDP changer that the usually reliable "Sensible Sound" praised when they too claimed that all CDPs sound alike and I was disgusted at how bad it sounded. Like everything else in audio, with CD players you must let your own ears be your guide.
But as always you must not let your 'eyes' -- which is to say, the biases that come along with sighted comparison --misguide you.
krabapple is offline  
post #29 of 79 Old 04-13-2006, 10:58 AM
Member
 
chuck1801's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A few years ago I bought the critically acclaimed Sony XA777ES from an e-tailer. For years before that, I thought as many did, that a CDP is a CDP, why spend big $$ on one. I was very skeptical when I got it so, while I was still in the return period, I did some tests. I hooked up all the CDPs I had or could borrow to my Pioneer VSX-49TX receiver and Paradigm Studio 40 v2 speakers (NAD 541i, Sony SCD-775, Pioneer DV-333, Pioneer Elite DV-47, Denon 1600). Doing a comparison between all of these players, I consistently picked the XA777ES. Then I asked some friends who don't know crap about audio to compare. I did not tell them which player was playing and they could not tell by looking. Nor did I tell them that any player was more expensive than the others. They all consistently said "that one" sounds the best, i.e. the XA777ES. End of debate as far as I was concerned. I kept the XA777ES.
chuck1801 is offline  
post #30 of 79 Old 04-13-2006, 12:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Randybes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I would be interested in this test. Level match by ear and then check your results with a meter. How close were you?
Randybes is offline  
Closed Thread CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off