or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › CD Player recommendations for my setup
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CD Player recommendations for my setup - Page 2

post #31 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

Actually looking at the trend of this thread and when it started, who responded,etc.
It could be deemed that it is actually you and Krabapple that has derailed this thread.

But not ldgibson76?
As for who it is deemed to be, I disagree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

Anyway, your right maybe I am wrong in stating religion controlling both facts and opinions.
Really I should had compared it more to fanatic sect, sorry that I used the wrong comparison

So you would rather not answer in an environment where you also have to present the reason/s for the answer. Fine, lets move on then.
post #32 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwf1fan View Post

I was merely offering an apology.

Apology for what?
post #33 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekhd View Post

Apology for what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwf1fan View Post

Sorry guys, I inadvertently made him aware of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmwf1fan View Post

I was giving him an example of what a normal discussion thread looks like - and this is the result. Sorry.

For that.
post #34 of 197
So let me see if I'm reading Harold, geekhd and krabapple correctly.....
You guys are saying that out of the 8 digital devices I have in my system, there is no possible way that they could vary in performance (sound quality), given the fact that they are "level-matched". Granted, when the cd players are connected via digital connection and the pre amp is doing the DAC, I can agree, there will be no difference, but if you are talking analog connectivity, and the CD players are doing the DAC, then there has to be a difference regardless of how minor the difference could or may be, there will be a difference. That's not bias, that's fact!
post #35 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldgibson76 View Post

SGranted, when the cd players are connected via digital connection and the pre amp is doing the DAC, I can agree, there will be no difference, but if you are talking analog connectivity, and the CD players are doing the DAC, then there has to be a difference regardless of how minor the difference could or may be, there will be a difference. That's not bias, that's fact!

"has to be a difference"

How do you figure that? Seems like a guess, certainly not a fact...
post #36 of 197
Quote:


You guys are saying that out of the 8 digital devices I have in my system, there is no possible way that they could vary in performance (sound quality), given the fact that they are "level-matched".

Are they, in fact, level-matched? That would be unusual. I suspect what you mean is:
Quote:


there is no possible way that they could vary in performance (sound quality), if they were "level-matched".

And, no, they (now we) are not saying there is "no possible way" they could sound different. Anything is possible. But given how uniform the sound is from digital device to digital device, it would be surprising if they really sounded different (exotica excepted).

Quote:


but if you are talking analog connectivity, and the CD players are doing the DAC, then there has to be a difference regardless of how minor the difference could or may be, there will be a difference.

Why? Why does there have to be a difference? (Remember, we are talking about an audible difference, not just a measurable one.) Do you believe it is simply not possible for two DACs to sound the same?
post #37 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldgibson76 View Post

regardless of how minor the difference could or may be, there will be a difference.

But that is the crux of the issue. The only differences that may exist are far below the threshold of audibility, and therefore don't matter.
post #38 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaroldTheBarrel View Post

But that is the crux of the issue. The only differences that may exist are far below the threshold of audibility, and therefore don't matter.

Just curious what are the measurements in terms of THD, individual harmonics, frequency range, noise floor, and also distortion based upon different dB levels that are the watermarks between what is audible and what is not?

Cheers
DT
post #39 of 197
You guys make compelling arguments.

My devices are as follows:

Samsung BD-P1200 Blu ray player
Pioneer Elite DVR-7000 DVD Recorder
XBOX Gaming system
Sony DVPNC555ES 5 Disc DVD Changer
Cambridge Audio Azur 640C CDP
Denon DVD2910 Universal
Philips CDR950 CD Recorder
Yamaha CD685 5 Disc CD Changer

Now, do you guys seriously believe that if properly level matched, no difference could be heard at all or are you implying that there could be a difference, but it couldn't be audibly detected?! I'm just curious.
post #40 of 197
The reason I ask is because there are vast differences in the way these devices are constructed.
post #41 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldgibson76 View Post

The reason I ask is because there are vast differences in the way these devices are constructed.

Been down that route with explaining and showing different architectures, etc.
Even with asking if DACs are all equal why are FPGAs developed as DAC and filters, or the purpose of I-to-V conversion and filtering (after all the costs of these developments and implementation are not cheap).
Sadly it will be ignored because the scope of the "all sounds the same" is specifically audibility and 100% identification failures in DBT to date.

I think this ignores technological fundamentals by turning a product into a box with irrelevant hardware and technology.
Still, I guess a food for thought is the DBT tests highlighted by the "all sounds the same" may be flawed as there has never been a successful test, which statistically with all the different hardware seems a bit improbable.

Cheers
DT
post #42 of 197
Quote:


Just curious what are the measurements in terms of THD, individual harmonics, frequency range, noise floor, and also distortion based upon different dB levels that are the watermarks between what is audible and what is not?

Good question, and not easy to answer. For FR deviations alone, it depends on how deep the deviation is, how wide it is, and even whether it's a peak or a trough. But for DACs, the differences are generally not even close to threshold. FR tends to be ruler-flat, with maybe a rolloff of a couple of tenths of a dB at 20kHz. Noise floor is essentially irrelevant, distortion is de minimis.
post #43 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldgibson76 View Post

So let me see if I'm reading Harold, geekhd and krabapple correctly.....
You guys are saying that out of the 8 digital devices I have in my system, there is no possible way that they could vary in performance (sound quality),

No, no one is saying that..though it's mind-numbingly typical for 'subjectivists' to jump to the conclusion that someone did.

No one used the word 'impossible'. For one thing, I don't know what 8 devices you are talking about. But *typically*, such playback 'devices' aren't going to sound different in a level-matched blind comparison, because typically, they perform at or beyond the limit of hearing such differences. Exceptions exist, of course.There are a tiny minority of screwy designs in the 'high end' for example, that eschew oversampling or use of anti-imaging filters at output. And at the lowest end -- say, 'Coby' portables -- there could be compromises with audible impact.

EDIT: I just checked your profile...AFAICT your digital 'devices' are all standard brands like Denon, Yamaha, Phillips etc. I don't expect those to produce audibly different output in a level-matched blind comparison, assuming of course no DSP has been engaged in any of them.


Quote:


given the fact that they are "level-matched".


Are they in fact 'level matched'? How do you know? Are seven of them serving as transports feeding a single DAC? If not, then analog output voltages might be different. That's a trivial difference, since you could compensate for it by simply turning the volume up or down to match levels. Hence the stipulation of 'level matching' -- typically to within 0.2 dB at, say, 1 kHz, for all channels, measred across the speaker terminals. Any differences you hear in a blind comparison at that point are intrinsic ones, that can't be eliminated by simple volume adjustment.

Put another way -- if the only audible differences between a $2000 and a $200 CDP was in overall output levels, do you consider that worth $1800?


Quote:


Granted, when the cd players are connected via digital connection and the pre amp is doing the DAC, I can agree, there will be no difference, but if you are talking analog connectivity, and the CD players are doing the DAC, then there has to be a difference regardless of how minor the difference could or may be, there will be a difference. That's not bias, that's fact!

There may well be a measurable difference, but measurable differences aren't necessarily audible, and that's a fact too.
post #44 of 197
Quote:


Now, do you guys seriously believe that if properly level matched, no difference could be heard at all or are you implying that there could be a difference, but it couldn't be audibly detected?! I'm just curious.

We're talking about audibility. They'll all measure differently. (For that matter, two units of the same model will measure differently.) If properly level-matched, playing the same CD, I believe you could not tell which of these was which without looking at them. The obvious exception would be if one were malfunctioning, and a lemon design is not unheard of. But "sounds the same" is generally a safe bet; the exceptions are rare.

Quote:


The reason I ask is because there are vast differences in the way these devices are constructed.

Yes, but at the heart of each is a DAC chip, and all modern DAC chips have remarkably similar output.
post #45 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldgibson76 View Post

The reason I ask is because there are vast differences in the way these devices are constructed.

Could you expand on what constitutes a 'vast difference' in these that you'd expect to result in audible difference when they are level-matched and compared blind?

Feel free to cite comparative specs/measurments for
"THD, individual harmonics, frequency range, noise floor, and also distortion"
to support your case. I'm willing to be convinced.
post #46 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

Just curious what are the measurements in terms of THD, individual harmonics, frequency range, noise floor, and also distortion based upon different dB levels that are the watermarks between what is audible and what is not?

Cheers
DT


Apart from 'individual harmonics' (not sure what you intend there, unless it's meant in contrast to Total HD), and the last reference to unspecified 'distortion', these are legit questions. "Frequency range" is typically 20-20khz; below 20, things are more 'felt' than heard; above 20,000, it's the very rare adult who can hear anything at normal listening levels...and even then the limit is ~24 kHz. Noise floor of digital players nowadays is simply not an issue -- it's usually lower than the noise floor of the listening environment, and lower than the noise in any analog tape source used to generate a CD.

I'll try to get back to you soon with JND (just noticable difference) figures and thresholds for THD at different frequencies. Other forms of distortion include intermodulation distortion, jitter, channel separation, and nonflat frequency response (FR). Typically these numbers are so low as to be inaudible, and differences so minor as to be perceptibly the same. Frequency response variation of +/- 0.2dB in the midrange (where our hearing is most sensitive) can be audible, for pure tones; for music typically the required deviation is greater (e.g. 0.5 db). This is why overall level-matching is usually stipulated to be within 0.2dB, preferably checked at three frequencies (low, mid, high).
post #47 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

...
Sadly it will be ignored because the scope of the "all sounds the same" is specifically audibility and 100% identification failures in DBT to date.

Are you sure about this? Who said 100% failure to identify? Perhaps some in th epast were audibly different? Some were broken? Others were designed euphonic?
Or, you are just guessing about all sound the same and 100% stuff?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

...
Still, I guess a food for thought is the DBT tests highlighted by the "all sounds the same" may be flawed as there has never been a successful test, which statistically with all the different hardware seems a bit improbable.

Cheers
DT

Perhaps. Can you produce some credible DBT that shows audible differences that can be replicated by others as well, undes level matched DBT? Or, just more speculation?
post #48 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ldgibson76 View Post

....Now, do you guys seriously believe that if properly level matched, no difference could be heard at all or are you implying that there could be a difference, but it couldn't be audibly detected?! I'm just curious.

Is there a difference between those two parts?
post #49 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Are you sure about this? Who said 100% failure to identify? Perhaps some in th epast were audibly different? Some were broken? Others were designed euphonic?
Or, you are just guessing about all sound the same and 100% stuff?



Perhaps. Can you produce some credible DBT that shows audible differences that can be replicated by others as well, undes level matched DBT? Or, just more speculation?

Hello???
I am going by what the DBT crew have said so surely it is down to them to show the information, and then explain it in a bit more detail.

So I think you got it a bit wrong, it is the job of the DBT to explain the process, thoughts, results, and conclusions.
Not me thanks so redirect your post to them.
Cheers
DT
post #50 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

I am going by what the DBT crew have said so surely it is down to them to show the information, and then explain it in a bit more detail.

Show us one single place in any thread here that any one has said that all (100%) double blind test have had the same result? No one (other than yourself) has ever said such a thing. Rather we've been very careful to point out that the correlation between positive and negative double blind testing and the measurements of such equipment is 100%. I pointed out in the other thread where you repeated this misconception some low hanging fruit, but here it is again for anyone else not inclined to go digging through the multitude of AVS threads:

ABX Double Blind Comparator Data
post #51 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

But *typically*, such playback 'devices' aren't going to sound different in a level-matched blind comparison, because typically, they perform at or beyond the limit of hearing such differences. Exceptions exist, of course.

The OP's question did not ask about "typical" playback devices. He gave a list, and on that list was the NAD C542. This is a minor upgrade of the C541i, which I had. I can tell you that player did noticeably and obviously colour the sound. It was obvious from the beginning and even more obvious when the player failed and was replaced by something that did not colour the sound.

No doubt NAD did that to make up for the slightly boomy mid-priced speakers the player would typically be used with, which it did if you weren't too picky. I accepted when I bought the player that at that time it was expensive to build an excellent roll-off filter for a 44.1kHz DAC which didn't colour the sound, and that NAD made a sensible engineering tradeoff considering the typical speakers the player would be used with. Mine was certainly a huge improvement on the player it replaced when used with my speakers.

The NAD site stresses that the C542 is only slightly changed from the C541i, so I guess for marketing reasons if no longer for economy the new version the OP asked about might still colour the sound. It's at least plausible, and the onus is on anyone suggesting that player is flat (by virtue of all mid-priced players being flat) to go find one and make some measurements or run a double-blind test.
post #52 of 197
It may be that the 541 was one of the rare badly designed CD players. But NAD's more typical problem is bad quality control, not bad design, so it seems more likely that you just got a defective unit. Whatever the cause of your particular problem, however, this statement is off the mark:
Quote:


at that time it was expensive to build an excellent roll-off filter for a 44.1kHz DAC which didn't colour the sound

By that time it was trivially easy to build an oversampling DAC that did not color the sound at all, as numerous DBTs and measurements have shown.

I wouldn't buy a NAD CD player, but "coloring the sound" is not the reason why.
post #53 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

Hello???

Yes, I am still here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

I am going by what the DBT crew have said so surely it is down to them to show the information, and then explain it in a bit more detail.

Or, you are going by what you may be imagining what was said? Of course that is possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

So I think you got it a bit wrong, it is the job of the DBT to explain the process, thoughts, results, and conclusions.
Not me thanks so redirect your post to them.
Cheers
DT

Actually, you are not exempt from producing positive DBT outcomes at a higher rate than what has been published so far, right? Even if there were none published, you'd still have a burden of proof of audible difference, no? Unless you don't make such claims, right?
post #54 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by howdyasay View Post

The NAD site stresses that the C542 is only slightly changed from the C541i, so I guess for marketing reasons if no longer for economy the new version the OP asked about might still colour the sound. It's at least plausible, and the onus is on anyone suggesting that player is flat (by virtue of all mid-priced players being flat) to go find one and make some measurements or run a double-blind test.

Doesn't the company provide frequency response specs? Should anyone doubt it, by all means test it. And, the burden is on the audible difference crowd to show it to be audibly different, right? That is testable and provable. Hard to prove a negative.
post #55 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

It may be that the 541 was one of the rare badly designed CD players. But NAD's more typical problem is bad quality control, not bad design, so it seems more likely that you just got a defective unit.

Unlikely, since it was the same in both channels and the one I auditioned at the dealer was like that too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

By that time it was trivially easy to build an oversampling DAC that did not color the sound at all, as numerous DBTs and measurements have shown.

By what time? They would have been designing the thing in the mid- to late 1990s. And it's fanciful to assume that just because it is easy to do something correctly that it is done correctly. The never-ending procession of botches in such things as video deinterlacing, audio synching, HDMI handshaking, and LFE levels shows that consumer electronics companies can't be trusted to get simple things right. Therefore, measurements and double-blind tests on one implementation can't be extrapolated to all of them.

Many of these bugs are actually on high-volume chips, which means that manufacturers in the middle segment of the market really are caught.

Please note also you slightly misquoted me: I said I "accepted" that a flat response would have cost more, not that it really would have. At the time I lacked the time to find out for sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Doesn't the company provide frequency response specs? Should anyone doubt it, by all means test it.

No, they didn't and don't. I don't know how you think the average consumer is supposed to make measurements either. They have neither the equipment nor skills. Unless their time is valueless, it makes more sense to just buy a more expensive brand and hope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

And, the burden is on the audible difference crowd to show it to be audibly different, right? That is testable and provable. Hard to prove a negative.

Not in this case. A blanket, unproved, statement was made that all non-esoteric CD players sounded the same. That can't be proved since the set of players grows all the time. It also wasn't necessary, since the OP only mentioned three players.

You're also misusing "a negative" here: it's just as easy or hard to prove something sounds the same as it is to prove it sounds different.
post #56 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

Show us one single place in any thread here that any one has said that all (100%) double blind test have had the same result? No one (other than yourself) has ever said such a thing. Rather we've been very careful to point out that the correlation between positive and negative double blind testing and the measurements of such equipment is 100%. I pointed out in the other thread where you repeated this misconception some low hanging fruit, but here it is again for anyone else not inclined to go digging through the multitude of AVS threads:

ABX Double Blind Comparator Data

Ok,
so you accept there are people who have passed ABX DBT, which means that there are people who can hear differences, which means any statements that devices all sound the same should be qualified by "IMO and experience" or "DBT tests that has results showing both pass and fails".

But I bet you will come back and say, ah the hardware was a faulty design.
Anyway if your going to throw around statements products do sound the same unless flawed, here is a suggestion for you and the others.
Start a thread explaining everything, surmising the theory-practical experience-reasoning-conclusion and further thoughts.

You only have to do this once Scientist and co, because you just bookmark that thread and then add the URL in future discussions.
Not hard, not too much work, and makes sense.
But, what we have at the moment is just "you cannot hear differences and this is proved by DBT", with one DBT site thrown in without any comments about them.

So please to make life easier for all parties, can someone from the DBT party please please please take the time and effort to create a concise thread that offers information that adds to the discussion.
This is not about arguing but sharing knowledge.

BTW, I checked the various products in that ABX link you provided but the problem is, we are not comparing anything that is truly mainstream to recognised upper brands.
Can someone provide another ABX data site that has done this?
Although ideally this should be done in a dedicated thread that pulls all the different sites, process,etc all under one roof (one thread).

Also I forgot who was doing the speaker challenge where there was prize money if you could tell the difference, the restriction was that the speakers had to be equalised (sadly I cannot remember the details bah).
Anyone remember who this was or has information on this as well?

Thanks
DT
post #57 of 197
Quote:


Ok,
so you accept there are people who have passed ABX DBT, which means that there are people who can hear differences, which means any statements that devices all sound the same should be qualified by "IMO and experience" or "DBT tests that has results showing both pass and fails".

Nope. Try reading it again, this time with comprehension.
post #58 of 197
Quote:


By what time? They would have been designing the thing in the mid- to late 1990s. And it's fanciful to assume that just because it is easy to do something correctly that it is done correctly.

Except that it was routinely done correctly by that time, as repeated DBTs (and measurements) were showing.

I'm guessing that there was nothing wrong with this particular model, and that you were imagining this coloration. Very easy to do, especially if you believed at the time that coloration was typical of CD players.
post #59 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by howdyasay View Post

Unless their time is valueless, it makes more sense to just buy a more expensive brand and hope.

Not so. It makes more sense to research before pouring money into something.

Just wondering, are some people willing to accept that "difference is inaudible" = "sound the same"? I for one am not. One is saying there is a difference but it's not detectable by human hearing and the other is saying there isn't a difference as in absolute.
post #60 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Nope. Try reading it again, this time with comprehension.

Hey your doing well, thats another put down.
Your averaging over 1 a day, pretty impressive.
How many are needed for someone to be defined as arrogant?

Anyway, to help my poor comprehension explain it in your own terms.
I have been told not to say all DBT are failed resulting in it being possibly flawed.
So taking that into account this means some MUST had passed the DBT, in fact looking at the link Scientist provided they do.

Now you, with that great way of yours in putting someone down says nope.
Ah, and lets see if you can drop the put downs, I doubt it though.

Apart from the put down.
How about the second part of where I am asking for extra information from DBT experts such as yourself?
You definitely do not come across as one to share knowledge or facts, just to argue and try to make others small, would be great if you could help out with that 2nd part of my post eh.

Also can you and Scientist please explain the careful 100% statistic your are using that proves DBT results show that no-one is passing the test well enough for it to be considered that equipment sounds different.
If you have those that have passed and failed, where do get 100% from?
Would help if you actually list those tests/products you are using for correlating this information.

All of these requests should not be difficult as this is a field that interests you guys and using that information to spread facts, this means obviously you have all the information bookmarked for easy reference.
Hopefully this means you can cut and paste the core information and easily add comments that help all of us understand this field better.

Cheers
DT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › CD Player recommendations for my setup