or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › best cd player under $3000?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

best cd player under $3000? - Page 3

post #61 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Technical specs are irrelevant. No doubt speakers that look better on paper are out there, but so what? The only thing that counts is how they sound to me. The speakers in question are Alesis Monitor Ones. B&W 800s (for example) have deeper bass, and that is all.

So the only difference between the 800's and the One's is the bass? They produce exactly the same mids and highs, with no difference what so ever? And all other speakers sound the same in the mids and highs?
post #62 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 View Post

So the only difference between the 800's and the One's is the bass? They produce exactly the same mids and highs, with no difference what so ever? And all other speakers sound the same in the mids and highs?

I didn't say that the 800's sounded exactly the same, merely that they don't sound better. A lot of speakers sound different from the Ones, just not better.
post #63 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

You surely never imagined that I (or anyone else) would seriously expect that there is actual, valuable knowledge to be gained here. Not when people like you are the source!

My farts contain more valid info than your useless opinions. At least I speak in tangibles, am truly interested in helping people, provide actual valid information, and when I do provide opinions they are presented reasonably humbly, intelligently and usefully, without the self-indulgent pomp, stupidity and inanity that has become your trademark. The result of which, of course, is that your posts have absolutely no validity to anyone here. You ARE, indeed, the laughing stock of the forums. Suit yourself.
post #64 of 156
Quote:


A lot of speakers sound different from the Ones, just not better.

If they don't sound the same, then one pair must sound better. Are you deaf?
post #65 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 View Post

If they don't sound the same, then one pair must sound better.

Thank you for the laugh. That easily ranks as one of the stupidest statements of all time (at least where audio is concerned.) It is right up there with saying "if two kinds of chocolate taste different, one must be better".

Oh, and I am the opposite of deaf. My hearing is perfect.
post #66 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Thank you for the laugh. That easily ranks as one of the stupidest statements of all time (at least where audio is concerned.) It is right up there with saying "if two kinds of chocolate taste different, one must be better".

Oh, and I am the opposite of deaf. My hearing is perfect.

So when you hear two pair that sound different, one doesn't sound better to you?

Or to use your analogy, if two chocolates taste different, you don't prefer one over the other?

Have you no preferences on anything?
post #67 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 View Post

So when you hear two pair that sound different, one doesn't sound better to you?

Or to use your analogy, if two chocolates taste different, you don't prefer one over the other?

Have you no preferences on anything?

If one has an obvious flaw (harshness, brightness, "chuffing", muddiness, etc.) then it sounds worse. If both produce a pure, clear, undistorted sound without audible flaws then no, neither is better.
post #68 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

My hearing is perfect.

So. My eyesight is perfect but I don't always understand what I read or know what the hell I am looking at.

The important issue is whether you really have anything between your perfect ears or not, isn't it? We're talking about perception, here, no?
post #69 of 156
Quote:


If both produce a pure, clear, undistorted sound without audible flaws then no, neither is better.

And you wouldn't prefer one or the other? That really makes no sense at all.
post #70 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 View Post

And you wouldn't prefer one or the other? That really makes no sense at all.

Even though the perceivable difference may be apparent, it IS often times difficult to ascertain which difference you may prefer; the "better" difference, so to speak.

Someone may indeed prefer the sound of a "lesser" CD player.
post #71 of 156
Why do you guys feed him?

Every forum or list has guys like this - "all cars have four wheels therefore the cheapest one is the equal of the most expensive." I see so many all DAC's are same, all CD players are the same...it doesn't matter. We all buy what we feel is the best for OUR money. We buy what WE want. I'm not sure why someone feels compelled to shove their idea of a perfect system down someone else's throat.

I hear this stuff and see this stuff on EVERY forum I have ever tried to belong to. Just ignore it. It might not go away but you don't have to pay homage to it either.
post #72 of 156
Just to TRY to get this thread back on track, I would highly recommend, like someone earlier did, taking a good look at the Cambridge Audio line and the Rega Apollo and Saturn. The Sony 9000 ES is also a surprisingly terrific player, and brilliant at SACDs to boot.
post #73 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by HT_n_Me View Post

Why do you guys feed him?

Maybe he'll choke.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HT_n_Me View Post

Just ignore it. It might not go away but you don't have to pay homage to it either.

I would gladly join a campaign to put PULLIAMM on everyone's ignore list.
post #74 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

The fact that they cannot be improved on at all in any area other than deep bass is a big part of why I am disillusioned with the so-called "high end". (Especially since they were only $200.)


Are are kidding, right?
post #75 of 156
I still don't understand why every time there's a question posted about a cd player being better than the other some people on this forum can't resist the impulse of making the thread theirs. if someone here wants to spend $3,000 on a cd player because they feel it's worth it, I think that person, in this case the op should be respected and the answers should be given accordingly. I have lived for more than two years with three cd players in my system and they all sound different. They are all good, but one of them sounds absolutely incredible.

Now, who here is going to challenge my experience?
post #76 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Technical specs are irrelevant. No doubt speakers that look better on paper are out there, but so what? The only thing that counts is how they sound to me. The speakers in question are Alesis Monitor Ones. B&W 800s (for example) have deeper bass, and that is all.

Well, the B&W 800's don't address any of the "technical specs" (more like "necessary but not sufficient conditions for high-fidelity sound in normal domestic living rooms") I mentioned either except for cone area, so you could be right about that.

Still if you really think that they're all that compared to GedLee Summas, Gradient Revolutions, TAD Model One, KEF Reference line, and similar well-engineered speakers, then good for you. B&W's aren't particularly well-engineered speakers, so I don't see why you'd bother to mention them. (If you want to listen to a well-engineered cheap speaker, try the KEF Q-series.)

But I've heard those monitors on a number of occasions. Let's just say I was hardly compelled to trade in my speakers (which do meet all of the criteria I mentioned above) for them...

That said, "studio monitors" generally do offer more bang for the sonic buck than "home speakers," though they're also generally ugly.

Still, I agree that those speakers will allow you to hear all the differences that may exist between competently-designed digital sources under $3000, or for that matter all competently-designed digital sources between, say, $50 and five figures...
post #77 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

I didn't say that the 800's sounded exactly the same, merely that they don't sound better. A lot of speakers sound different from the Ones, just not better.

No, a lot of speakers sound a lot better.
post #78 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by luismanrara View Post

I still don't understand why every time there's a question posted about a cd player being better than the other some people on this forum can't resist the impulse of making the thread theirs. if someone here wants to spend $3,000 on a cd player because they feel it's worth it, I think that person, in this case the op should be respected and the answers should be given accordingly.


Why need a forum when one cannot ask and get answers that are correct? If someone thinks or knows that the difference is small or not audible between A, that cost 700$, and B, that cost 3000$, why should he not tell that? It's a 2300$ save.
post #79 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

Why need a forum when one cannot ask and get answers that are correct? If someone thinks or knows that the difference is small or not audible between A, that cost 700$, and B, that cost 3000$, why should he not tell that? It's a 2300$ save.



It's interesting to note that while Pulliamm suggests not to pay more than $500 for a cd player because they will all sound the same above that price, that you aim a little higher on that possibility and put it at $700.00. In time we will get to the 3000 dollar amount and maybe even go beyond.

All cd players above $500 sound the same
All cd players above $700 sound the same
All cd players above $___ sound the same (feel free to fill out this form)
All cd players above $____ sound the same
post #80 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

Why need a forum when one cannot ask and get answers that are correct? If someone thinks or knows that the difference is small or not audible between A, that cost 700$, and B, that cost 3000$, why should he not tell that? It's a 2300$ save.

Because he's a dope. He's got a crappy, medium resolution system and wants us all the believe that he's qualified to proclaim based on some vast previous experience that "it's all the same". It just isn't and in many cases it's not very close for all kinds of really obvious reasons.

The old Arcam CD players (circa FMJ-23) used a poor man's version of the DCS ring dac in their output stage. I was listening to that versus a very solid Rotel 1072 with a completely different DAC execution. The two players didn't sound "more alike than not", they were night and day. Anybody who walked into the audition room would have been able to instantly tell the difference between the two players. The basic execution of the ring dac and whatever dac that Rotel was using was just that different.

That was the one of the first times that the difference between two CD players JUMPED at me--the funny thing was, I wasn't even in the store to audition CD players. I was auditioning speakers and although I didn't think much of the Totem, Martin Logan, and Revel crap that was being rolled out for me, the Arcam was the standout piece of the day (and no, I don't own and have never owned that CD player).

So listen to the one hit wonder who always says the same thing...or use your ears and actually go make up your own mind.
post #81 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by badgerdms View Post

No, a lot of speakers sound a lot better.

post #82 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by luismanrara View Post

It's interesting to note that while Pulliamm suggests not to pay more than $500 for a cd player because they will all sound the same above that price, that you aim a little higher on that possibility and put it at $700.00.


Did I say that? No. Read again.
post #83 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by badgerdms View Post

The old Arcam CD players (circa FMJ-23) used a poor man's version of the DCS ring dac in their output stage. I was listening to that versus a very solid Rotel 1072 with a completely different DAC execution. The two players didn't sound "more alike than not", they were night and day. Anybody who walked into the audition room would have been able to instantly tell the difference between the two players. The basic execution of the ring dac and whatever dac that Rotel was using was just that different.


Stuff like this don't sounds true at all. Mostly the difference is very little and NOT night and day.
post #84 of 156
+1.
post #85 of 156
Please, avoid the personal attacks. Debate the issue, of course, but why does it have to be personal ?

I think it's also ok to question someone's spending. Also, it's obvious audio is HIGHLY subjective. So we have to accept that we don't have much agreement. Just keep it civil, if at all possible.
post #86 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Also, it's obvious audio is HIGHLY subjective. So we have to accept that we don't have much agreement. Just keep it civil, if at all possible.


No, audio is not just subjective. We can very easily prove something in a DBT, to see that what we hear is real and not placebo.
I remember a swedish forum where a couple of guys was testing DAC and heard "big difference" between them. A week later when they redid the test blindly and levelmatched, they could not tell the DAC apart.
post #87 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Please, avoid the personal attacks. Debate the issue, of course, but why does it have to be personal ?

I think it's also ok to question someone's spending. Also, it's obvious audio is HIGHLY subjective. So we have to accept that we don't have much agreement. Just keep it civil, if at all possible.

I guess you don't know PULLIAMM. He deserves all the sh!t he gets. And more.
post #88 of 156
Hello Everyone.

This post/response to this thread, to some, due to the 3K price point, may not qualify as a relevant observation, but please try to work with me.
Below is a photo of the "Audio" side of my AV setup. For you hi-end audio types, try not to laugh too hard.....



The components consist of:
Cambridge Audio Azur 640C (Dual Wolfson WM8740 24bit/192kHz DAC's). Connected with AQ Diamondback interconnects and Monster M1000 Coaxial Digital cable. $649.00

Denon DVD2910 Universal SACD/DVD-A/CD/DVD Player (Dual Burr-Brown PCM-1791 24bit/192kHz DAC's). Connected with Key Digital Pro-Connect Interconnects and Monster InterLink Lightspeed 200 Toslink cable. (Key Digital Python HDMI cable and 6 AQ Diamondback interconnects for 5.1 audio). $729.00

Philips CDR950 CD Recorder (Analog Devices AD1855 - Stereo, 96 kHz, Multibit Sigma Delta DAC). Connected with Monster M850 Interconnects and Key Digital Pro-Connect Toslink cables. $499.00

Yamaha CDC 685 CD Changer (S-Bit DAC's: Yamaha is very vague when revealing specs. "S" meaning, "Single" bit to bit conversion). Connected with Monster M1000 Interconnects and Acoustic Research Pro II Series Toslink cable. $229.00

The room size is 18 x 11.6 x 8. The speakers are pointed inward and they sit exactly 9 feet apart. I sit approximately 9 feet from the speaker dead center. No subwoofer is used in the comparison. "Source Direct" and "Stereo" are the modes used.

All players listed are connected to a Marantz SR9300 AV Receiver 140 watts x 7/165 watts x 2 @ 8 ohms ($3199.00) which in stereo mode, the Digital-to-analog conversion is performed by a quartet of Cirrus Logic Crystal CS4396 24bit/192kHz stereo DAC devices with 120 dB of available dynamic range. In stereo mode, to improve performance, four of the eight DACs are employed in a differential configuration, as with many other high-end products.

Now, as you can see, there's nothing on that audio rack that's remotely close to $3000.00!
Actually, the Denon DVD2910 Universal had the highest MSRP at $729.00.

Being that all the components are going to the same AV Receiver and the same speakers are being used, Klipsch Reference RF35 Towers via Monster M1.4 Bi-Wired cables. And finally, the digital devices are plugged into a Panamax MAX5100 Power center.

Now that you have a breakdown of the audio aspect of my system, which I will admit, is far from being the paragon of 2 channel playback. There's a lot to be desired with this setup. Compared to what a lot of you own, 20-30K+ audio setups, my system can easily be considered low budget. But I do believe I have an even playing field when comparing playback quality of different cd players, all with different implementations and DAC's.

First off, when listening to music and using the digital process allowing the Marantz to do the converting, they all pretty much sounded the same! Why shouldn't they?! Same DAC's, right!?! (The Marantz's)
Now, when I switched each player to analog, that's were the differences became evident. How? Well let's start with the Cambridge.
There was virtually no difference in sound quality via analog or digital. Both have evenly matched high quality DAC's. Same with the Denon DVD2910. The Burr Brown DAC's performed just as well as the Marantz's.
Now, when it came to the Philips playback via analog, the dynamic range fell off. The volume lowered by a couple decibels. The Philips is a hell of a CD recorder. It makes excellent duplicates of recordings, but the playback in analog is a little strained.

The Yamaha does sound decent in analog. Better than the Philips, but paled in comparison to the Cambridge and the Denon. I guess the S-Bit technology can be considered run of the mill conversion. It just wasn't as engaging.

Now if any of you feel that because of the superior specs of the Cambridge and the Denon, the placebo effect kicks in, but I can assure you, that is not the case.
I did hear sonic differences when using the players DAC's. The sound stage was different in some cases, imaging, dynamic range, low and mid range, even in the highs. The Klipsch's, although, often ridiculed on this website, does well revealing flaws in recordings.

The Redbook CD's I used for the comparison was:

Basia - Clear Horizon (Best of Basia)
Al Jarreau - Tenderness
Jonathan Butler - Ultimate Butler
Diana Krall - The Look of Love
U2 - 18 Singles
Natalie Cole - Leavin'
Bobby Caldwell - Timeline (The Anthology Pt. 1)
Sting - Fields of Gold (Best of Sting 1984-1994)
FourPlay - Best of Fourplay (Greatest Hits)
Nancy Wilson - Greatest Hits
Boney James - Shine
Sade - Lover's Rock
Puff Johnson - Miracle

So my conclusion is......Digital connection will pretty much sound the same.
Analog connection will reveal any differences.

I hope this contribution can be considered relevant. The comparison is subjective. Anyone could come to my home and come back with completely different results. It really comes down to what you prefer. Knowing what to listen for could also prove helpful.

Regards.
post #89 of 156
Great input, 76. Did you switch inputs with the remote? I did the same test some time ago using 4 copies of the same cd, with high quality Sennheiser headphones. Players were from $200 to $900 max. Press play at the same time, listen and switch. I came to the same conclusion, some players have better dacs, but not night and day. (unless you go to sub-$100 2 lbs units). Tracking error and scratch tests was another story.
post #90 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitsum View Post

Great input, 76. Did you switch inputs with the remote? I did the same test some time ago using 4 copies of the same cd, with high quality Sennheiser headphones. Players were from $200 to $900 max. Press play at the same time, listen and switch. I came to the same conclusion, some players have better dacs, but not night and day. (unless you go to sub-$100 2 lbs units). Tracking error and scratch tests was another story.

Hello "kitsum".

Yes, I did utilize the remote. Just to give you an idea of the techniques used when comparing..... Let's say I'm listening to Basia's "Waters of March" on the Cambridge 640 CDP. During the playback, I would start with the digital connection. 30 seconds in, I would switch to analog using the A/D function on the remote. The second method was using CD's I have in duplicate. Such as Sade's "Lover's Rock", or Puff Johnson's "Miracle". I forgot to include this title in the previous post. I would play both CD's simultaneously in different players, such as the Yamaha and the Denon. Using the remote, to start one Player and manually push play on the other, both cued at the same track.
Using the remote, I would switch from one player to the other, listening for differences, along with switching from analog to digital numerous times.
Total time invested into this experiment: 4 1/2 hours. I'm not kidding!
But it was worth it, and I learn a lot about my system's CD playback capability and confirmed that at least with the products I've chosen, DAC's can make a difference.

Regards.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › best cd player under $3000?