or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › music - typical CD player vs. typcial DVD ??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

music - typical CD player vs. typcial DVD ?? - Page 2

post #31 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

30 kHz tones can be measured. Would you say that they can be "potentially _sensed_ by someone"?

Batman?
post #32 of 423
To answer the OP's question,a $250 CD player likely will not sound better with music than a DVD player in the same price range.Now if you had a real high end system you could hear a difference.
post #33 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by brendy View Post

To answer the OP's question,a $250 CD player likely will not sound better with music than a DVD player in the same price range.Now if you had a real high end system you could hear a difference.

Please include the reason why.

By the way, what defines high end system?
post #34 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

... Perhaps one day you'll spend the time.

Or, he will sit down to a proper comparison to demonstrate his prowess in detecting differences.
post #35 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvtdude View Post

...
Are you going to tell me that any car with 250 hp and 4 identical BF Goodrich tires is going to offer the same driving experience?

Ho hum, another ridiculous car analogy to audio thinking they have something in common

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvtdude View Post

Music is incredibly complex, and you can't tell me that you can measure everything that influences how it sounds.

So what, if that is the case. Are you trying to tell us that you can hear all the complexity of that complex music? Really? Or, just speculating? Be careful.
post #36 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap1 View Post

Batman?

Bring him on
Same with superman And the Vulcan
post #37 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by brendy View Post

...Now if you had a real high end system you could hear a difference.

Highly questionable to be sure. But, evidence would help.
post #38 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Ho hum, another ridiculous car analogy to audio thinking they have something in common

There must be a group of people drinking from the same well. Is it called some kind of asylum well or something?
post #39 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Ho hum, another ridiculous car analogy to audio thinking they have something in common



Maybe so, but useful in that it helps illuminate the basis for the beliefs. Namely, in many of our practical day-to-day experiences with other products of all stripes, such as cars, toaster ovens, furniture, etc., the products which use better parts will often perform better.

The common sense approach is to extend that practical experience to audio products as well. Then when you mix in product marketing which plays into this mindset and all the favorable audio magazine reviews which keep the party going and the typically flawed methods listeners (and reviewers) use to evaluate these products, well, is it any wonder so many people believe as they do? That such 'n such cd player at ten times the cost of this such 'n such dvd player will not only last longer and look better, but will also sound better, etc.?


"common sense" is the basis of poor thinking just as often as it is a good, useful approach to life. Sometimes I even think it is more intellectually debilitating to our human kind than it helps us.
post #40 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeJoe View Post

I will agree with your post, with the stipulation that differences are minimal if you are comparing products of upper-tier manufacturers. Comparing the analog outputs of top quality equipment with that of budget gear can be just as revealing with disc players as it is with other components.

...if done double blind and level-matched. Has it been for you?


If it hasn't, then whatever was 'revealed' might either be imaginary, or due to trivially correctible differences in output level.
post #41 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap1 View Post

I wouldn't agree on this statement. Different DACs, anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters may sound slightly different on specific music material. It all can be recognized with proper measurements.

Show me some.
post #42 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap1 View Post

I try to play safe, when state that if something can be measured, it can be potentially _sensed_ by someone.

Wrong. We can measure differences that, in terms of audibility, are infinitesimally small. Just as we can detect things that are invisible to the eye, we can measure differences that cannot be heard.
post #43 of 423
True. Not only can we measure them but the instruments don't get fatigued.
post #44 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Show me some.

Here is an example from my personal experience. Several years ago I bought, then top of the line, Yamaha player. I liked its overall sound quality. But then I noticed that on some tracks it produced distinct "S" distortion (where "S" sounds like "SSS"). I didn't have any other complains, but I strongly disliked that distortion. So I decided that it has to go and replaced it with Adcom, which was in the similar price range. Adcom sounded quit similar (neutral and transparent) overall, but didn't have this "SSS" problem. Yamaha was built with proprietary DAC and filters, while Adcom used famous Burr-Brown PCM63 DAC.
I still own this Adcom, and when I bought Denon receiver, which uses ADAU1328 DAC I compared analogue feed from Adcom (in pure direct mode) with digital feed when Denon does D/A conversion (of course all room correction and other processing was turned off). I found them sounding very similar until I head a track with few small bell dings head within 10 seconds from each other. At that point I head that sound was slightly different. I repeated the same test next day, and again head some difference. But I can't say which I like better. And since I can not compare record with the sound of real bell I can't say which reproduces it closer.
post #45 of 423
You haven't shown me anything that fits this description:

Quote:


It all can be recognized with proper measurements.
post #46 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap1 View Post

Different DACs, anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters may sound slightly different on specific music material. It all can be recognized with proper measurements.

Bring on the measurements. And, of course, measurability doesn't equate to audibility.
post #47 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap1 View Post

Here is an example from my personal experience.

Where are the measurement data you alluded to? Should we accept your anecdotal experience as a substitute?
post #48 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Show me some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milaz001 View Post

Where are the measurement data you alluded to? Should we accept your anecdotal experience as a substitute?

If I have enough free time, I'll try to record speaker level signal of these bells sound and do a high resolution FFT. I am as curious as you what kind of difference is there.
post #49 of 423
Quote:


If I have enough free time, I'll try to record speaker level signal of these bells sound and do a high resolution FFT. I am as curious as you what kind of difference is there.

So in other words, when you said this:
Quote:


It all can be recognized with proper measurements.

...you were basically talking out your a**.
post #50 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

You haven't shown me anything that fits this description:

The ears are more sensitive to sound than any measurement tool you can throw at us. They've evolved over millions of years, and we all have a pair, but we probably don't know everything that the ear/brain mechanism picks up on.

It's not that every bit of distortion couldn't be measured. It probably could be, if we knew what we were looking for. Until we know every type of distortion that exists and have eradicated all of them, I'm going to believe that there are audible differences.

I once read an article on fractals that was very enlightening. Yes, it was in Stereophile, so if you want to stop reading, go right ahead. The basic idea is that analog signals can be more accurate than digital signals. It talked about the resolution of low level detail and compared a digital signal to a painting.

A painting made up of blocks or dots may look perfect from a distance, but as you get closer and closer, the individual dots or blocks would become more and more apparent. A digital image on a 1080p TV would be another example. Great from 10 feet away, not so great from 2 feet away. An analog signal when taken down to the lowest level gradually fades away into nothingness. The closer you get the more you see (or hear.) Go tell a photographer a digital image is more accurate than an analog image, I dare ya.

Digital music when you get down to the lowest level loses it's resolving power as well, and if you have linearity errors in a DAC that resolving power can be even worse.

Stereophile just reviewed a McIntosh Music Server that suffers these linearity errors (I know, they pointed out a problem! Maybe McIntosh didn't pay their advertising bill??? Take that conspiracy theorists!) and I read elsewhere on the site that this error results in the McIntosh being more equivalent to a 14 bit digital system than the 16 bit system it's supposed to be. Now maybe you can or maybe you can't hear that. It can be measured. And this poor performance comes from a VERY expensive high end manufacturer.

If a high end item that costs thousands of dollars can have such problems, why not a $79 cd player? If you had a PERFECT 16 bit digital system, it may be impossible to hear differences. Call me crazy, but I don't think anyone's produced that perfect system to this day. If there's a system out there with perfect linearity, perfect (zero) distortion and perfect (again zero) jitter performance, I'd like to hear about it. It stands to reason that if there are measurable differences, then there may be audible differences.

I know, I know, but what about double blind testing? What about it?

Can anyone offer up a perfect double blind test? Is a level matching device going to be completely transparent? Does anyone listen to their music while under the stress of being "tested?" Do people do these tests in the comfort of their own home with equipment they're completely familiar with?

Lastly, if people think they hear differences in equipment, and you don't, what do you care? I don't believe in gods, but I don't tell people they're crazy for having religion. No one can prove the existence of any deity, yet BILLIONS of people are religious. Are they as nuts as we audiophiles, or more so?

What we're talking about here is open to debate. Nobody has proven or disproven that audible differences exist. I hear differences. Maybe I'm a nut, who knows for sure?
post #51 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvtdude View Post

The ears are more sensitive to sound than any measurement tool you can throw at us. They've evolved over millions of years, and we all have a pair, but we probably don't know everything that the ear/brain mechanism picks up on. your eyes have evolved just as long. there are many things that can be "seen and measured" that you cannot see with your eyes. sensitivity of the ears has no bearing on whether something can be measured. there are MANY devices that are MUCH more sensitive than the human ear.

It's not that every bit of distortion couldn't be measured. It probably could be, if we knew what we were looking for. Until we know every type of distortion that exists and have eradicated all of them, I'm going to believe that there are audible differences.the science of audio is well understood, as long as people accept it. there's no "magic" there.

I once read an article on fractals that was very enlightening. Yes, it was in Stereophile, so if you want to stop reading, go right ahead. The basic idea is that analog signals can be more accurate than digital signals. It talked about the resolution of low level detail and compared a digital signal to a painting.bad analogy.

A painting made up of blocks or dots may look perfect from a distance, but as you get closer and closer, the individual dots or blocks would become more and more apparent. A digital image on a 1080p TV would be another example. Great from 10 feet away, not so great from 2 feet away. An analog signal when taken down to the lowest level gradually fades away into nothingness. The closer you get the more you see (or hear.) Go tell a photographer a digital image is more accurate than an analog image, I dare ya.MANY professional photographers use digital imaging now.

Digital music when you get down to the lowest level loses it's resolving power as well, and if you have linearity errors in a DAC that resolving power can be even worse.

Stereophile just reviewed a McIntosh Music Server that suffers these linearity errors (I know, they pointed out a problem! Maybe McIntosh didn't pay their advertising bill??? Take that conspiracy theorists!) and I read elsewhere on the site that this error results in the McIntosh being more equivalent to a 14 bit digital system than the 16 bit system it's supposed to be. Now maybe you can or maybe you can't hear that. It can be measured. And this poor performance comes from a VERY expensive high end manufacturer.

If a high end item that costs thousands of dollars can have such problems, why not a $79 cd player? If you had a PERFECT 16 bit digital system, it may be impossible to hear differences. Call me crazy, but I don't think anyone's produced that perfect system to this day. If there's a system out there with perfect linearity, perfect (zero) distortion and perfect (again zero) jitter performance, I'd like to hear about it. It stands to reason that if there are measurable differences, then there may be audible differences.

I know, I know, but what about double blind testing? What about it?

Can anyone offer up a perfect double blind test? Is a level matching device going to be completely transparent? Does anyone listen to their music while under the stress of being "tested?" Do people do these tests in the comfort of their own home with equipment they're completely familiar with? ah, the old "stress" argument. following that theory, everyone would fail every test they ever took, audio or otherwise. did you get to take your final exams in the comfort of your own home?

Lastly, if people think they hear differences in equipment, and you don't, what do you care? I don't believe in gods, but I don't tell people they're crazy for having religion. No one can prove the existence of any deity, yet BILLIONS of people are religious. Are they as nuts as we audiophiles, or more so? won't touch that one.

What we're talking about here is open to debate. Nobody has proven or disproven that audible differences exist. I hear differences. Maybe I'm a nut, who knows for sure?

actually, it may be debated, but for those who choose to accept science, it's not really open to debate.
post #52 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Tracy View Post

I did equalize the levels and I did the comparison for myself.

Please do not presume to tell me what I hear or do not hear.

LMAO, good luck with that!!!!
post #53 of 423
Quote:


The ears are more sensitive to sound than any measurement tool you can throw at us.

Pure nonsense. Our ears aren't particularly sensitive at all.

Quote:


It's not that every bit of distortion couldn't be measured. It probably could be, if we knew what we were looking for.

Distortion is the difference between the input signal and the output signal. Of course we can measure it all.

Life is easy when you can pretend that the science you don't know just doesn't exist.
post #54 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvtdude View Post

The ears are more sensitive to sound than any measurement tool you can throw at us.

Dead wrong. We can absolutely, positively measure differences in 'sound' that no ear could possibly hear.

Perhaps what you mean is that not every dimension of sound that we CAN hear, is directly measurable. I agree with that.

The rest of your post is shot through with tendentious nonsense. Really, take each claim and start a thread on it. You'll get schooled fast.
post #55 of 423
"ah, the old "stress" argument. following that theory, everyone would fail every test they ever took, audio or otherwise. did you get to take your final exams in the comfort of your own home?"

Not everyone. I am a very good test taker, but I know some very intelligent people that are terrible when it comes to taking tests. Call it stress, call it whatever you want. They don't do poorly because they aren't intelligent.

If you're stressed out, your blood pressure changes, adrenaline starts pumping, etc. You don't think that might affect your hearing? Seriously?

Do you believe someone could set up the proper test equipment and implement it well enough to detect everything the ear/brain mechanism can? Volume, distance, timbre, spatial cues, etc?

I'm sure there are people that can hear the differences between every instrument in an orchestra, down to the particular manufacturer of the instrument itself, what type of bow is being drawn across the violin, etc. Could anyone even devise a test and set up the proper test equipment to make the same determinations?

I don't think perfect sound exists. Every piece of equipment ever made has some area in which it fails in some manner. Even all your precious test equipment has its limits. I've read numerous test reports that state, "within the limits of our test equipment."

I've been hearing for years that all amplifiers sound the same. Maybe they all test the same. What is measured? Frequency response. Total harmonic distortion. Signal to noise ratio. Residual noise. Transient intermodulation distortion. Dynamic power. Power into an 8 ohm load. Power into a 4 ohm load. Power into a 2 ohm load. The list goes on and on. You probably can't find two amps of the exact same make and model that measure EXACTLY the same in just these parameters, let alone ones we may not know about. How can two completely different amplifiers be expected to measure and sound the same?

How can one amp perform exactly the same as another with real music into a real world speaker, not a resistor in a lab somewhere? One amp may sound great (and measure great) driving my Vandersteens and another may not do as well. They're a relatively easy load to drive. What happens when an amp is faced with a speaker like an Apogee Scintilla? Is a 50 watt Technics receiver going to sound as good as a 50 watt Mark Levinson amplifier? Hey, if you believe it will, save yourself the money and buy something else that will make you happy. Maybe some fancy new test equipment?
post #56 of 423
"MANY professional photographers use digital imaging now."

Is that due to accuracy or ease of use?
post #57 of 423
"won't touch that one."

Yeah, I didn't think so.
post #58 of 423
"the science of audio is well understood, as long as people accept it. "

Says who? And I didn't say anything about magic.
post #59 of 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvtdude View Post

I've been hearing for years that all amplifiers sound the same.


That's odd* because no one has been saying that.


Anyway. This thread isn't about the well-understood conditions under which amps are likely to sound different, or the same. There are other threads about that. Rest assured, your tired arguments have been dealt with many, many times before, on this and the other matters you cite.

(*I'm being sarcastic. It's not odd. It's mind-numbingly common. What you wrote is one of the favorite strawman arguments of the 'subjectivist' side, which seems to have penchant for mis-stating the 'objectivist' position)
post #60 of 423
God, the stress is just killing me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › music - typical CD player vs. typcial DVD ??