or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › The "Official" All CD Players Sound the Same Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The "Official" All CD Players Sound the Same Thread - Page 2  

post #31 of 1168
Thread Starter 
I think this thread will be more useful to future users if your posts prresent your arguement for why you beleive that there are no audible differences in the sound of CD players (assuming the player is properly constructed and not modified to sound different).

If any of you feel that my provisios mentioned here are insufficient then by all means state what you feel should be said, rather than attacking me.
post #32 of 1168
Thread Starter 
All - please read the first post regarding the purpose of this thread. I was hoping that it would not become a continuation of the other thread and would serve a very useful purpose as a source of information. Thank you.
post #33 of 1168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The publications in question aren't publishing this stuff on the web, and I've seen evidence that they are policing other's attempts, well-meaning or not, to infringe on their copyrights.


arnyk - I guess I can understnad their position for wanting to protect their work. Do you know if back issues are available or is there a source of reprints?
post #34 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcan View Post

On the contrary WilliamZX11. I think that disagreement and discussion can be productive. But there are some people who have been exposed to your position and simply disagree. Should they not be able to have a dialogue without having the thread hi-jacked?

I'm not following your "logic". You claim that disagreement and discussion can be productive, but when that happens, it's a thread hi-jack?

If that's the case, then those who posted links here believing that there is a difference, are hi-jacking this thread.
post #35 of 1168
Thread Starter 
All - I have set-up post #2 to serve as an index for finding infromation on this subject. I know that sometimes as threads grow they can become unwieldy so this should make it easy to find info as it is added over time. In the future, if you have been away for awhile it might be useful for you to check post #2 so that you can conveniently find what information has been added.

Please continue to add references and I will update the index - thanks!
post #36 of 1168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 View Post

I'm not following your "logic". You claim that disagreement and discussion can be productive, but when that happens, it's a thread hi-jack?

If that's the case, then those who posted links here believing that there is a difference, are hi-jacking this thread.

WillaimZX11 - I am interested in your opinion - how do you think it should work?
post #37 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcan View Post

WillaimZX11 - I am interested in your opinion - how do you think it should work?

How should it work? All threads should be open for discussions from both sides of the issue, just as it has always been here.

The fact that you would like threads where opposing viewpoints are off limits, tells me that you have already made up your mind, and aren't really here to try and learn anything. Mcnarus and geekhd seem to have you pegged.
post #38 of 1168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 View Post

How should it work? All threads should be open for discussions from both sides of the issue, just as it has always been here.

The fact that you would like threads where opposing viewpoints are off limits, tells me that you have already made up your mind, and aren't really here to try and learn anything. Mcnarus and geekhd seem to have you pegged.

If the posters in a thread indicate that they no longer have an interest in hearing anymore about the point of view that you wish to share, would you respect their wishes or continue to intrude in their discussion?
post #39 of 1168
Thread Starter 
Does anyone have any more references of sources to include? At present there are four listed in the index. I don't recall any others being listed in the other thread. At this point I believe that we have included them all. Please add more if you know of any.
post #40 of 1168
Thread Starter 
WilliamZX11 - you seem to be a pretty strong proponent of the "no difference" camp. What was the information that persuaded you?
post #41 of 1168
If you can't hear the difference between a $100 player and a $1000 player, swapped out, in a blind test, god bless....you just saved a ton of $$$. Sorry to say, I can....sometimes the difference can be startling....in imaging and soundstage alone. I wish I couldn't tell the difference....I'd have more $$$ to buy music.
post #42 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbis View Post

If you can't hear the difference between a $100 player and a $1000 player, swapped out, in a blind test, god bless....you just saved a ton of $$$. Sorry to say, I can....sometimes the difference can be startling....in imaging and soundstage alone. I wish I couldn't tell the difference....I'd have more $$$ to buy music.


Great and again like you have been asked in countless threads tell us about the level matching and time synching you did in order to perform a test that actually might be useful to everyone here.

Since its obvious you did none of these things you have only fooled yourself. You can keep claiming you are in the "nut house" all you want. But its you that are passing on misinformation not everyone else. There are CDP comparisons and there are CDP comparisons. Why YOU fail to see there is an absolute way to do it right is pretty strange.

Then again if I went out and dropped a grand on a new CD player and just hooked it up against my old one and it sounded better I guess I would be happy and question the the posters here who tell me there should be no difference when you clearly hear one.

Ahhh, what am I wasting my time for. You are not going to admit your test was not done right. You are probably going to tell us more about warming up and breaking in gear.
post #43 of 1168
Thread Starter 
bobbis and Bruins29 - it sounds like you two have a little history and that you are in total disagreement as to whether there is a difference in the sound of CD players.

bobbis - let me know if I am off here but I think that you believe that there are differences in the sound of CD players because you auditioned two different players and believe that you heard a difference.

Bruins29 - correct me if I am wrong but you believe that if bobbis conducted his listening test in a different way, with the players in sync and level matched, he would not have heard a difference.

I understand why bobbis believes what he does -it is based on his personal experience in the listening test. Bruins29 - could you please explain why you believe that if bobbis conducted the test differently, he would have heard a difference? A major goal of this thread is to help people who have not formed an opinion on this topic to understand what information leads one to believe that there is no difference.

Was it your experience in a double blind test?

Was it the references that arnyk cited?

Was it the Matrix Hifi website or the two tests on the ABX site?

All of these things together or something else entirely that has not been presented here?
post #44 of 1168
Volcan, another important link for your post #2 synopsis can be found HERE.

And don't forget to add this incisive addendum.


post #45 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcan View Post

There is a group of listeners who believe that for properly constructed CD players that are not defective and manufactured over the last 20 years there will be no audible differences if during the listening test they are properly synced and the output level matched. The rare player that may have been modified or poorly constructed may sound different, but are not believed to be common. The purpose of this thread is to provide an easily found and referenced location for posting links to double blind tests and other information discussing whether there are audible differences between CD Players.

This is somewhat like a post that states "There is a group of 'scientists' (notice the conspicuous scare quotes) who believe that sunlight is not a miraculous gift from God Almighty. The purpose of this thread is for such so-called 'scientists' to post any and all information they may have in 30-second sound-bite sized chunks so that those of us who know that 'God did it' (often written as 'Goddidit' at skeptic boards) is the real answer can pretend to be interested in hearing those sound bites with an open mind (whenever "open mind" is invoked on a skeptics' board, the actual skeptics with good BS detectors usually learn to wait for the believer to reveal himself/herself further)."

It demonstrates a lack of awareness that sunlight is the result of the constant fusion of hydrogen into helium and the energy that such a reaction releases as electromagnetic radiation. Such radiation is released from the sun's surface (after a long journey through the sun's busy interior) in the form of photons that travel at the speed of light, c, 93 million miles to reach the earth's surface in approximately 8 minutes as visible and invisible light. That is, once a person learns what causes sunlight and accepts that as a reliable explanation, the miraculousness of life-giving sunlight is demystified and it is no longer so miraculous. God doesn't explain anything in that regard. It is a mystical non-explanation.

The visible/invisible distinction only makes sense with respect to understanding the limits of human sight. Humans see light only within the visible spectrum of light, well, by definition. Nevertheless, there exists measurable light in that very same radiation that simply isn't visible to humans because our human perception is limited. We cannot see light that is ultraviolet in the upper frequencies (or shorter wavelengths than violet, if you prefer) or light that is infrared in the lower frequencies (or longer wavelengths than red). The visible/invisible distinction is due to a recognition of the limits of human perception, but it is not a distinction with much meaning outside that context. That is, in a sterile lifeless universe, an outside entity would likely refer to "light," without the need to make a visible/invisible distinction.

Quote:


This thread is only for information regarding CD players. Discussion of cables, amps, etc should be posted elsewhere.

This is akin to plugging your ears in a discussion. It does not account for two very vital facts:

1) The limits of human perception apply to hearing, much like they apply to seeing, and scientists have conducted much research on finding and understanding those limits, and they are generally well-understood in the field of psychoacoustics.

2) Engineers involved in the design of the architecture and specifications for the Redbook CD standards were acutely aware of the limits of human hearing and designed the CD standards with those limits in mind. Similarly, designers of CD players and their essential components use the CD standards to build their players with specifications to conform to those standards. That is to say that the products they design, and which have been refined to the point where they are fungible commodities, to take advantage of those limits of human hearing and define the specifications to which products have to be engineered and built. Another way to put it is that CD players are designed and built to be as good as they need to be for human beings to hear what they play. Anything a given CD player might be able to reproduce that is outside those limits of human perception is overkill and unnecessary because humans simply won't hear it.

This latter part is analogous to recognizing that projector lamps need only produce light in the frequency bands that humans can see. It would be silly to fit projectors with lamps that produce a lot of infrared light, or DVD or Blu-ray players that emit a lot of ultraviolet light. It would be sillier still to argue about how other posters don't know that some posters don't see light in the ultraviolet spectrum, so they can't possibly know that everyone is incapable of seeing that band of light anyway. Who are they to say that buying a bulb from Brand A might not yield visible improvements in their high-end AV rig versus the pedestrian Brand B bulb?

Anyway, the bottom line is that the reason CD players tend to sound indistinguishable when level matched and played through the same signal chain (amps and speakers and everything else involved) and in the same room and same listening position, etc., is that the components in CD players are commodities -- they are functionally equivalent today, regardless of differing architectures and designs. This is a function of psychoacoutics as much as anything technological, because the technology has taken psychoacoustics into account. Furthermore, it is due to the maturity of the manufacturing and designs of CD players, progress in chip design and implementation, saturation of the consumer market, and economies of scale.

Much of the reticence with which anyone who remains in the "camp" that does not recognize these facts has in accepting them as facts is due in part to the notion that it seems counter-intuitive, especially given that many of us have been taught by audiophile press and audiophiles themselves, and by many salespersons in consumer electronics, that price is commensurate with quality in audio electronics. You get what you pay for. Thus, if a $200 CD player sounds good, a $2000 CD player will sound much better, and a $20,000 CD player will sound out of this world.

That simply is not true due to the commoditization of the essential components of CD players that have any audible impact. The key word is "audible," much like the key quality of a projector bulb is how much visible light it will emit. Using esoteric components that perform the same functions in a CD player as commodity components yields no audible benefit. It is superfluous for the designer, and foolish for the consumer who recognizes this to pay for it.

The "camp" on AVS who recognizes this does so due to having done the homework in learning the truth of these matters. It is predicted theoretically using specs and psychoacoustics, and it is tested and verified empirically by researchers using good scientific protocols. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Those who keep insisting that others do so here haven't let go of their intuitive misconceptions about human hearing. They haven't let go of the notion that there are golden-eared individuals who love music more than others, or who have ultra-revealing systems, or who have trained themselves to listen more closely than others who can hear stuff that human beings just cannot hear.

You don't have to have a PhD in engineering or in psychoacoustics, nor do you have to have designed and built CD players for 25 years, to understand this. Similarly, you don't have to have a PhD in astrophysics to understand that sunlight isn't a miracle.

Better than any link to studies using DBT to investigate whether audible differences exist among commodity CD players is one on psychoacoutics. For the benefit of those laypersons among us, including myself, I'll provide a simple, nontechnical one for the very basics and a quick overview. To those interested in reading it who are not already familiar with the notion, it can be illuminating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

The believers will most likely disregard it and continue to believe what they intuit to be right. We tend to regard anything which is counter-intuitive as fishy anyway. It's just the way human rationalization works. Science is hard, and trusting the scientific method requires work. Those with a disdain for it often incorrectly deride such trust as "faith" in science. At a philosophical level (epistemological) one must take inductive reasoning as a means to knowledge as axiomatic, but that's where the derisive appellation of "faith" in science nonsense ends.
post #46 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

To those interested in reading it who are not already familiar with the notion, it can be illuminating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

Illuminating indeed, especially the extract below from the reference you provided:
"Some recent research has also demonstrated a hypersonic effect which is that although sounds above 20 kHz cannot consciously be heard, they can have an effect on the listener." (Just threw this in for laughs, not that I agree or disagree with this statement.)

Will, your post is interesting, but I think more relevant to the debate around SACD and high resolution formats. I do agree with your point though to also include research around psychoacoustics that will be relevant to this thread.
post #47 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdanT View Post

"Some recent research has also demonstrated a hypersonic effect which is that although sounds above 20 kHz cannot consciously be heard, they can have an effect on the listener." (Just threw this in for laughs, not that I agree or disagree with this statement.)

Interesting. I'd like to try CDs with >20KHz notes mixed in, can you recommend some titles? Also, how do I figure out how high the speaker drivers can put out without excess distortion so that the above quote can be compared fairly?
post #48 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcan View Post

If the posters in a thread indicate that they no longer have an interest in hearing anymore about the point of view that you wish to share, would you respect their wishes or continue to intrude in their discussion?

What part of my previous post did you fail to understand. This is an open forum, all sides should get to post their opinions. Who gets to decide which side is "intruding"? If you don't want to hear other points of view, why post any questions at all?
post #49 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 View Post

What part of my previous post did you fail to understand. This is an open forum, all sides should get to post their opinions. Who gets to decide which side is "intruding"? If you don't want to hear other points of view, why post any questions at all?

William,

I'll note that Volcan's admonition sounds remarkably like that of the fundamentalist Christian who claims that non-Christian displays threaten to suppress Christianity and are oppressive to the Christian.

Furthermore, his straw man "all CD players sound the same" thread title is akin to the Creationist's straw man restatement of a straw man evolutionist's claim that "man descended from monkeys."

(I almost wrote "apes," but then after all, homo sapiens are Great Apes).
post #50 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will2007 View Post

Snip....
1) The limits of human perception apply to hearing, much like they apply to seeing, and scientists have conducted much research on finding and understanding those limits, and they are generally well-understood in the field of psychoacoustics.

2) Engineers involved in the design of the architecture and specifications for the Redbook CD standards were acutely aware of the limits of human hearing and designed the CD standards with those limits in mind. Similarly, designers of CD players and their essential components use the CD standards to build their players with specifications to conform to those standards....
Snip
.

This is from the Philips lead engineer who designed much and worked with the rest of the team on the CD and accounted the history of CD in interesting detail.
Dr Kees Immink
Quote:


A large number of people, especially young people, are perfectly capable of hearing sounds at frequencies well above 20 kHz.
That is, in theory, all we can say.

Quote:


The presence of the PCM video-based adaptors explains the choice of sampling frequency for the CD, as the number of video lines, frame rate, and bits per line end up dictating the sampling frequency one can achieve for storing stereo audio.
The sampling frequencies of 44.1 and 44.056 kHz were the direct result of a need for compatibility with the NTSC and PAL video formats.
Essentially, since there were no other reliable recording products available at that time that offered other options in sampling rates, the Sony/Philips task force could only choose between 44.1 or 44.056 KHz and 16 bits resolution (or less).

And the conclusion by him.
Quote:


In summary, Compact Disc sound quality followed the sound quality of Sony’s PCM-1600 adaptor since logistically speaking there was no other choice.

So hopefully you find this useful and gives all a chance to correct the assumption on CD design.

Edit:
This is a snippet from an account he gave to the IEEE, which I believe he also shared with AES.
If interested in more search the internet for:
"Shannon, Beethoven, and the Compact Disc" by Dr Kees Immink

Cheers
DT
post #51 of 1168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 View Post

I'm not following your "logic". You claim that disagreement and discussion can be productive, but when that happens, it's a thread hi-jack?

If that's the case, then those who posted links here believing that there is a difference, are hi-jacking this thread.


WilliamZX11 – After sleeping on it and considering your point of view, I have changed my mind and agree that you are right. Even if your postings are disruptive and unwelcome in a thread, you should go ahead and post in any thread that you desire.

Of course one good thing about this thread is that it can referenced from these future “Which Sounds Better Player A vs Player B” discussions. This thread will conveniently list all of your arguments that support your position. If your logic is compelling, you will win them over to your point of view. If your logic is not compelling, then your continued re-statements of your position can be ignored.

A couple of posters who share your position expressed that they were tired of having to continually bring out their arguments again and again. Now they won’t have to, but they can if they like. I suggest that early on in these “Which CD Player Sounds Better” Threads that some one provide a link to this thread. Maybe some language such as this can be provided with the link:

The issue of whether or not audible differences in CD Players can be heard has been very well debated in these forums. The arguments are collected in “The Official All CD Players Sound Alike Thread”. You are encouraged to follow this link and decide for yourself whether these arguments have merit.
post #52 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcan View Post

A couple of posters who share your position expressed that they were tired of having to continually bring out their arguments again and again. Now they won't have to, but they can if they like.

This ignores how threads fall off the top page of forums like this over time and the overall behavior of posters and lurkers of forums in general. The fact is that many popular and controversial topics get rehashed over and over in time. I don't know why you would presume that your thread would be any different.

Quote:


I suggest that early on in these Which CD Player Sounds Better Threads that some one provide a link to this thread. Maybe some language such as this can be provided with the link:

Again, you're being presumptuous. Your suggestion would require that someone, most likely a moderator or administrator, have to patrol threads and seek out ones that fit your criteria and then dig out a link to this one and post it on cue. I doubt anyone is willing to be your water carrier in that regard.

Quote:


The issue of whether or not audible differences in CD Players can be heard has been very well debated in these forums. The arguments are collected in The Official All CD Players Sound Alike Thread. You are encouraged to follow this link and decide for yourself whether these arguments have merit.

It's doubtful that this thread will have much staying power or draw much interest, especially in light of your straw man thread title. Have fun with it anyway.
post #53 of 1168
Thread Starter 
This post will be updated based on feedback here to summarize some of the implications that can be drawn from the position of those that believe that there is no audible difference between properly constructed, non-defective CD players that have not been modified. The initial post in this thread is based on discussion on this post in a different thread. It is being placed here so that further discussion can continue in the official thread.


The impression that I am getting is that some very experienced posters here believe that while there may be reasons to choose one player over another sound quality is not one of them. And that sound quality is not impacted by:

The DACs or chips used, internal or external DAC

Method of connection to system whether balanced, unbalanced, coax, optical, HDMI
There will be not difference based on the method of connection once a player is in your home. There will be no differences in a DBT if levels are matched and the players synced.

Filters or any other aspects of circuitry that I don't understand

The transport mechanism

Single vs multiplay transport configuration

Heft or rigidity and resistance to resonance of the case

Isolation of vibration from outside sources or damping of internal vibration

Presence of video circuitry or the ability to turn such circuitry off.

Electrical influence from nearby equipment - heat the only concern

Electrical influence from internal circuitry or separation of power supply

Make or model of solid state amp so long as power is adequate

Differences related to jitter or word clock

Not only are there no differences between players currently in production there is no difference in players produced over the last 20 years or more. According to Wikipedia “The first album to be actually released on CD was Billy Joel's 52nd Street, that reached the market alongside Sony's CD player CDP-101 on October 1, 1982 in Japan.. Early the following year CD players were released in the United States and other markets”.

The “no difference” group believes that CD technology matured very rapidly to the extent that since studies leading to the publication of Reference 1, listed in Post 2, published in Jan 1986, with the study conducted in 1985, if not sooner, there have been no improvements to the technology that result in an audible difference between players.
post #54 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcan View Post

This post will be updated based on feedback here to summarize some of the implications that can be drawn from the position of those that believe that there is no audible difference between properly constructed, non-defective CD players that have not been modified.

This is a kind of truism. All properly constructed, non-defective CD players are by definition sonically transparent, so they are bound to sound the same. If there were no sonically transparent CD players then some would be more transparent than others, and then there would be a reason to prefer one over another. As soon as sonically transparent CD players became generally available, choosing one over the other based on sound quality became impossible.

The origional CDP 101 and Philips/Magnavox CD-67 CD players (ca. 1982-1983) were AFAIK *not* sonically transparent. By 1986 a number of CD players were sonically transparent. The number and percentage of sonically transparent players has increased and their cost in then-current dollars has decreased.

Quote:


The impression that I am getting is that some very experienced posters here believe that while there may be reasons to choose one player over another sound quality is not one of them.

Agreed.

It does remain interesting to discuss those occasional music players that miss the mark, and fail to be sonically transparent.

Quote:


And that sound quality is not impacted by:

The DACs or chips used, internal or external DAC

Actually, some external DACs have been problematical. The easisest place to put the DAC has historically been where the transport is, because there are technical synergies to having them in the same box. This option has become less feasible as receivers with digital processors have become more popular.

Quote:


Method of connection to system whether balanced, unbalanced, coax, optical, HDMI

That of course depends on what and how you connect the music player to. If the device being connected to is well-designed, then we're back at the truism, and the combination of the two devices is sonically transparent.

Quote:


There will be not difference based on the method of connection once a player is in your home. There will be no differences in a DBT if levels are level matched within 0.1 dB 20-20 KHz and the players time synced within a few milliseconds.

Quote:


Filters or any other aspects of circuitry that I don't understand

Agreed. Note that filters were the main reason why the CDP 101 and CD-67 weren't sonically transparent.

Quote:


The transport mechanism

Again, the trusim applies.

Quote:


Single vs multiplay transport configuration

Sonically transparent single and multiplay players exist with many good options of each.

Quote:


Heft or rigidity and resistance to resonance of the case

Right, as long as you don't shake the player so hard that there is mistracking.

Amazingly flimsy players have proven to work very well. The current fashion of fashioning players out of solid billets of aluminum or Titanium is amusing and can be attractive from a visual standpoint. Sonically, it can easily be a wash.

Quote:


Isolation of vibration from outside sources or damping of internal vibration

As long as you don't cause mistracking.

Quote:


Presence of video circuitry or the ability to turn such circuitry off.

Right. Getting to be moot given that many people are using external digital processors or receivers with digital inputs.

Quote:


Electrical influence from nearby equipment - heat the only concern

I imagine that if you put some CD players on top of oil burners with operating spark ignition systems... But, under reasonable conditions. If there is external interference, it will take the form of clearly audible clicks, pops, and the like.

Quote:


Electrical influence from internal circuitry or separation of power supply

Per the truism.

Quote:


Make or model of solid state amp so long as power is adequate

As the truism applies to both the amp and the music player.

Quote:


Differences related to jitter or word clock

That's how the truism applies.

Quote:


Not only are there no differences between players currently in production there is no difference in players produced over the last 20 years or more.

We're not saying that there haven't been or will never be any screw-ups. It is just that they are and have been infrequent.

Quote:


According to Wikipedia The first album to be actually released on CD was Billy Joel's 52nd Street, that reached the market alongside Sony's CD player CDP-101 on October 1, 1982 in Japan.. Early the following year CD players were released in the United States and other markets.

Sounds about right.

Quote:


The no difference group believes that CD technology matured very rapidly to the extent that since studies leading to the publication of Reference 1, listed in Post 2, published in Jan 1986, with the study conducted in 1985, if not sooner, there have been no improvements to the technology that result in an audible difference between players.


By the time we did the tests published in Stereo Review in 1986, the majority of the players tested were sonically transparent when used with media in good condition. The CDP 101 that was tested at that time could be sonically distingushed with certain kinds of source material.

Other players tested at that time varied in their abilities to produce good sound from CDs that were scratched, abraded, sun-damaged, fungus-etched, delaminated, or certain CD-Rs.

Surprisingly CDP 101s generally do well with CD-Rs, but other more modern players don't.
post #55 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcan View Post

WilliamZX11 - After sleeping on it and considering your point of view, I have changed my mind and agree that you are right. Even if your postings are disruptive and unwelcome in a thread, you should go ahead and post in any thread that you desire.

Of course one good thing about this thread is that it can referenced from these future Which Sounds Better Player A vs Player B discussions. This thread will conveniently list all of your arguments that support your position. If your logic is compelling, you will win them over to your point of view. If your logic is not compelling, then your continued re-statements of your position can be ignored.

A couple of posters who share your position expressed that they were tired of having to continually bring out their arguments again and again. Now they won't have to, but they can if they like. I suggest that early on in these Which CD Player Sounds Better Threads that some one provide a link to this thread.

How is it that you know my position? I haven't made up my mind 100%, as I have never done a true DBT between players. But the differences I have heard (or thought I heard) between players are relatively tiny, and could easily be explained by level differences, and the evidence presented seems to point to that. I can accept that, because unlike you, I still have an open mind.

Thanks for your permission to post where I want. Like I needed it.
post #56 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdanT View Post

To keep balance I think it's important to also reference this link

To keep balance it would be more important to change the title of this thread to something that wasn't a strawman version of 'objectivist' viewpoints on CD difference.

And to take out the word 'official', because you're far from qualified to be the 'officer' here.
post #57 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbis View Post

If you can't hear the difference between a $100 player and a $1000 player, swapped out, in a blind test, god bless....you just saved a ton of $$$. Sorry to say, I can....sometimes the difference can be startling....in imaging and soundstage alone.

Particularly when levels aren't matched to within 0.2 dB in each channel.

In which case you paid 10X for a glorified 'volume' booster.

Can someone point me to a study where CD players were differentiated in a blind listening test, but there was *no* significant measurable difference in the audible range, found between them?
post #58 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekhd View Post

Interesting. I'd like to try CDs with >20KHz notes mixed in, can you recommend some titles? Also, how do I figure out how high the speaker drivers can put out without excess distortion so that the above quote can be compared fairly?

Oohashi et al. used a custom-built playback setup (including custom-made high-frequency tweeters); their results contains some bizarrely contradictory data; they used recorded material specifically enriched in 'ultrahigh' frequenceis; they made dubious leaps from blood flow in the brain, to perception; and they have never been replicated independently (in at least one attempt to do so).

See for example this post by "Edvaard' on the prosound forum for a further dissection (and note that he's actually open to the results presented therein):

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/ind...3895/358074/0/

Yet the 'I can hear differences!' crowd will keep trotting it out every time a newbie rediscovers the link, as if this somehow proves that the average punter listening to SACDs in their home, is hearing what Oohashi's subjects did.
post #59 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekhd View Post

Interesting. I'd like to try CDs with >20KHz notes mixed in, can you recommend some titles? Also, how do I figure out how high the speaker drivers can put out without excess distortion so that the above quote can be compared fairly?


The Nyquist limit for CD is ~22 kHz, not 20, so it is not that hard to find some with spectral content out beyond 20.
post #60 of 1168
Quote:
Originally Posted by DulcetTones View Post

This is from the Philips lead engineer who designed much and worked with the rest of the team on the CD and accounted the history of CD in interesting detail.
Dr Kees Immink

By 'well above' he means to about 25 kHz.

And by 'young' he means mostly pre-teen.

And that he had 'no more to say' is telling too. Because then he'd actually have to get into other things like the specifics of how well high frequencies are propagated in air, how well our recordings and gear propagate them undistorted or unmasked, and what levels we could expect to hear such materials. At which point the whole edifice of 'it's important to keep frequencies above 20 kHz', collapses.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › The "Official" All CD Players Sound the Same Thread