high-end CD player .. worth it? - Page 3

There is a big difference in CD players.

1) Northstar and DAC , is a real giant killer
2) Theta makes great transports had mine since 1994 needs a DAC
3) Meridian makes great transports mine is a 1994, needs a DAC
4) Muse makes good stuff, Muse 11 is a great player
5) DCS is the cost of your house so you may want to avoid it. Most say they make the best.
6) Wadia
7) Audiomecca
8) Gryphon

These are all great players and trans but are different.
Discontinued
Sonic Frontiers
PS Audio

You can find these most of the time on Audiogon since it's a buyers market.

Amps are drastically different, whether tube or SS.
Mosfet, Bipolar and tnp amps all sound different due to class. Class A sound better but have shortcomings in bandwidth. The Sugden is a great class a solid state.

Tube, well the jury is not out they are crucifying between tube and solid state. Actually the Scott and old Heathkit amps sold great. IMO

mcnarus's contribution is way beyond most around here and you really have no idea about his knowledge with a post like that.

The end comment makes me wonder. Do you have room treatments at all? Do you spend all that money on electronics instead of speakers? I would love to challenge you to an audio knowledge contest. I doubt you have a chance, I doubt you have ever measured a damn thing in audio, never built a speaker or a custom room. I would bet your expensive (overpriced) system has more flaws in it then you are remotely aware of, so much for you having a good system

In the end I believe you only are a product of audio marketing. Your kind is why the audio industry was blowing smoke up customers butholes for years. Its a great thing that people like McNarus exist on a forum like this because it cuts through the BS and gets into the audio science.

In summary back to the OP.

NEVER spend more then 20% of your budget on electronics. Room and speakers are what matter. If you want to improve sound, improve one of those. Electronic is just a coloration mechanism since after a small amount of $$$ there is ZERO improvement on the noise floor, distortion is inauble and you are just paying for marketing.

Until you guys back up all this subjective opinion with proper testing results anyone reading this should know its very subjective and take it with a grain of salt (or be smart like me and ignore such banter).

Show me the properly controlled tests that PROVES that "Big difference" you just posted.

If you can not then why post it? How are you remotely helping the OP?

I suspect its more about posting to make your own experience valid then helping anyone else.

Thanks for the update. I'm new to SACD and I'm trying to hammer all this out before I pull the trigger on buying a new optical disc player (CD/SACD/DVD/?blu-ray?).

What's next => UV-ray, x-ray, gamma-ray, cosmic-ray, Big-Bang-ray?

Electrothanasia ray.

Pennray you're right it's subjective dependent on how well you hear.

All opinions are subjective. I can only relate the ones I have or had or sold in my stereo shop.

When a guy says that he has a really crappy cheap amplifier and CD player and a very good set of speakers, and wants advice on upgrading his amplifier and CD player, mcnarus' advice is to spend money on speakers, because all CD players pretty much sound the same and so do amplifiers.

That tells me that mcnarus is either very inexperienced or stone deaf and has no worthwhile opinion to offer; loud and clear. No one with any meaningful experience in audio can respect that kind of ridiculous advice.

I built my first Klipschorn speakers from a Klipsch kit in 1959, and also built an ultralinear amplifier from scratch at the same time, and I have been hearing dramatic differences between good and bad amplifiers ever since, as well as measuring performance on the test bench. I have designed and built many amplifiers and speakers from scratch, not to mention transmitters, receivers, antennas, and dozens of other electronic devices.

Anyone who says that a guy should spend money to replace an excellent set of speakers and not replace a terrible amplifier is way out in left field. MY current system has about $7000 in speakers and $10,000 in the preamplifier and power amplifier, and my listening experience led me to buy these particular items because I LISTENED to them and many others extensively and could not get what I wanted in sound quality for less. Every part of my system is a product of 50 years of extensive and careful LISTENING, because for most of my life I was trying (and still am) to squeeze the most sound quality out of a limited budget.

I firmly believe in spending money on a good amplifier FIRST, so that one can HEAR what is coming from the CD player and judge the very real differences in them, and also so one can judge the differences in speakers. Trying to judge the differences in CD players without a decent amplifier is like trying to see something clearly a mile away with dirt on your binoculars.

After 50 years of LISTENING to the differences between CD players and amplifiers, I know that there are dramatic differences in the distortion levels they produce, so forgive me if I am not impressed by someone who does not yet seem to have come to appreciate that reality.

I taught electronics for 32 years at the college level after working in engineering at Douglas Aircraft as an Instrumentation Technician for 10 years (where testing and measurement was my whole job, including acoustic analysis of ducting and takeoffs/landings). I have spent hundreds of hours testing audio gear in my lab using state-of-the-art spectrum analyzers and distortion analzyzers. So much for your doubt about my experience.

I was the architect of my own home in 1994, and studied acoustics at the UCLA engineering school under a professor who consulted on the excellent acoustic design of Disney Hall in the LA Music Center. My 15' x 35' living/listening room was designed with dimensions, materials, and furnishings that provide a near-perfect acoustic environment; no acoustical band-aids needed.

My system has Audio Research Electronics and Vandersteen speakers and subwoofers. Similar systems using these components have consistently been judged to be among the "best of show" repeatedly at CES and other audio shows over the past 10 years. My Ayre C5-Xe CD player and the Sony SCD-XA5400ES that recently superseded it have won rave reviews and are both rated A+ by Stereophile. My purchases were strictly based on my own careful auditioning in my own home, but it IS nice to know that experienced experts in the field seem to have come to similar conclusions.

That Sony, by the way, is a remarkable product. For only $1500, it not only is better than the $6000 Ayre, but it sounds better in my personal comparisons than any other CD player I know of for under $10,000; a remarkable engineering accomplishment.

My money is not unlimited, but I would challenge anyone to build a better system for the money (around $30,000).

It seems that you are 100% wrong about everything that you falsely assumed in the nonsense you posted above; that is the trouble with proceeding with no knowledge and assuming a lot of nonsense.

You might want to take a look at the name of this site: AVS The "S" stands for "science." Science demands evidence, not simply argument from authority. (Especially your own authority!)

So, earlier in this thread I posted a link to dozens of listening tests supporting my assertion that people cannot generally hear differences between CD players. I can cite studies of dozens more. I can cite similar data for amplifiers. I can quote from college textbooks agreeing with me.

That's why a number of people with a great deal more knowledge and experience than I have do indeed respect the advice I offer here—because I can back up my advice with real, empirical evidence.

When you can provide some real empirical evidence to back up your baseless assertions, maybe people here will take you seriously, too.

One of the great joys and excitement of being an audiophile/hometheaterphile and etc. is the fact that we have lots and lots of choices in terms of audio / home theater equipment. It means that we can each, based upion our tastes and financial wherewithall, put together whatever system we choose - a system that reflects who and what we are regarless of sound quality. Product A may be the best CD player but I may go for Product B which is some factor more expensive because I like the styling/build of it or I like the company that manufactured it and etc... Don't get me wrong I want great sound but going after the "the best" is an illusive target. The fact is, this hobby would be so boring if we all bought the same brand (e.g. ACME such and such).

The fact is, each of our ears are not some precise measuring device. By the time we've hit middle age, a great many of us have experience some level of hearing loss. So how one could tell which is the better sounding piece of equipment is debatable.

I would love to splurge on super expensive equipment regardless if there were studies that showed that there is no real difference in sound. My system costs vic. $3,500 and probably sounds just as good as those costing much more. But again, if I won the lottery, I would go on one big shopping spree!

The extensive tests that I have personally run on audio equipment over the last 50 years were just as scientific as anything you can quote.

I can also give you hundreds of citations from "experts" proving the existence of global warming, and an equal number from "experts" challenging it. Vox clamanta in deserta. It is meaningless to line up a bunch of "evidence" that is selected to prove your predetermined conclusion. "Tell me what I want to hear and I will pronounce it scientifically valid"...G. W. Bush.

The only bottom line that determines my opinion of any piece of audio gear is WHAT I HEAR"!!! I come to any audition with an open mind, and ONLY when I hear significant differences do I draw conclusions.

I have no problem at all HEARING the differences in sound quality between CD players, and given the proper quality amplifier and speakers, I'll bet you would have no problem either. My wife has always been skeptical when something is brought home for an an audition (she can squeeze a nickel pretty hard...lol), and I always make it a point never to buy something unless she absolutely agrees that the improvement in sound quality justifies the cost. I strongly suspect that her hearing may be even better than mine.

Since you are 100% doctrinaire about certain things not being different, it seems doubtful if you could be open-minded even IF you were given a fair chance to hear what you don't want to hear.

It also seems unlikely that you would own an amplifier good enough to make a meaningful comparison of any two CD players in your own system, since someone who believes that amplifiers make no significant difference is not going to spend the money required to get a decent one.

You kind of remind me of a young golfing friend of mine who could NOT stop telling me how his Honda Civic, with its upgraded tires and shocks, was equal to anything on the road in terms of its cornering and handling ability. I listened to this for months, and finally I let him drive my 2009 Corvette for a few minutes. I haven't heard a peep out of him since; dead silence, lol. I think it is fair to conclude that his perspective has changed rather dramatically.

I am quite sure that there would be a similar result if you ever had a chance to listen to my audio system; there is no substitute for experiencing the right stuff. My only question is whether you would be honest enough to ADMIT what you would hear.

The "true believer" always selects his sources and references to support his predetermined conclusion; this seems to be your idea of "science". How ludicrous. Science requires a completely open mind and a level playing field when testing any hypothesis. Your comments would seem to indicate tunnel vision and a closed mind.

So publish them. They'd rock the scientific establishment.

But in the meantime, you've got absolutely nothing to offer except your own puffed-up assertion that you're an expert because you've spent tens of thousands of dollars buying stuff. Your only real credential is a credit card.

The fact that I can reliably distinguish between some CDP's and (external) DAC's, adjudged to be non-defective by Miller Audio, in properly level-matched, non-sighted listening tests would rock the scientific establishment? That's hard to believe.

Or were you referring only to amplifiers?

No, I actually AM an expert in the electronics field. It says so on my business card, and such companies as Motorola, Anritsu, Standard Communications, and Yaesu apparently believe it, because they regularly pay me $200 per hour for my professional services (I have to do SOMETHING when I am not golfing now that I am a retired professor...lol).

As for the credit card comment, you should realize that 20 or 30 years ago, when I was in my 40s, I did NOT have anything like what I have now. I was on a tight budget then, and my system was a NAD 3020 amplifier ($200, but an incredibly good amplifier for the money), and a set of Polk RTA 12 speakers ($1000), with a pretty nice $500 Harmon-Kardon turntable.

I might point out, by the way, that the $200 NAD integrated amplifier, which was quite good, replaced an $800 Yamaha integrated amplifier, which sucked (one of my biggest mistakes ever; I didn't have a chance to listen to that one enough before I bought it...big mistake). The idea is to buy what sounds good, ESPECIALLY if it is a good deal!! Throwing money around without doing extensive listening may get you expensive junk that sounds like crap. I have heard $20,000 systems that I wouldn't listen to for 5 minutes, and $4000 systems that sound pretty damn nice. Money alone ain't the answer; but most really good stuff unfortunately isn't usually cheap.

Here's a system that will sound better than most $20,000 systems, for under $5000: a Sony SCD-XA5400ES SACD/CD player ($1500 list); NAD C355BEE Integrated amplifier ($800), a pair of Audioquest Diamondback 1.5 meter interconnects ($200), and Vandersteen 2C speakers $2300. This gives you a very good amplifier, and a player and speakers that are EXCELLENT!!

It was only in the past 15 years or so that I started to have the money for more expensive gear, and very gradually made improvements. I certainly didn't run out and spend $30,000 in one year or one month! The reason I learned to listen SO carefully was a very tight budget! In most cases, such as with my Vandersteen 3 speakers, I listened to them (and many other speakers, amplifiers, and CD players), at my friend's audio store for a long long time before I could afford them. An empty wallet and a good technical background make you a VERY good listener...rofl.

If you save 20% of your income religiously, and invest it for your retirement like I did, you too may be well-off financially when you retire. It is sometimes hard to be disciplined and save when things are tight, but in the end it IS worth it. And if you are able to open your mind and your ears and gain my experience, you might even know what I know after a lot of years.

It's at least worth a try; but with your current close-minded approach, I fear you will be no wiser 20 years from now...how sad.

You've been mentioning auditions / hearing and mentioned only once that I see in this section about direct comparison (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post17872441 ) which I would like to follow up on. Can you explain how you do your auditions and direct comparisons of CDP and amps?

Also, what distortion level does the amp you listen to have?

No, it's that "fact" of yours that's hard to believe, as it runs counter to just about every objective listening test ever reported. Believe me, if you could duplicate this feat at an AES conference, you would cause quite the buzz. College textbooks would have to be rewritten.

Unfortunately, an electronics background isn't enough to understand audio. The other half of the equation is human hearing perception. Stick around here, and you might learn something about that from some real experts. (I don't include myself in that category.)

Or, you can keep calling people ignorant because they haven't done as much shopping as you have.

When I do a comparison, I put them in my system and listen. As needed, I will switch back to my current or reference equipment to play the same music for comparison. The ability to switch back and forth fairly quickly of course depends on which type of component is being compared. I go through a wide variety of music that I am intimately familiar with.

A meaningful distortion number for actual MUSIC is beyond the capability of even the most expensive distortion analyzer on the market. The best one can do is to check the intermodulation using two tones, which is a meaningful test, but not one which seems to correlate well with observed audible distortion (at least not in higher quality equipment).

The bottom line is that we can hear differences in high quality equipment playing actual music better than we can measure it. This is an observation that has been made over and over by virtually all of the best engineers and circuit designers in the business. The distortion specifications that are published (to meet government regulations) for amplifiers involve only the use of a sinewave test signal and a resistive load, and any experienced engineer will tell you that these specs are useless in determining what an amplifier does when it is amplifying MUSIC and driving an actual speaker! Your question about "what distortion level' makes me think that you are looking for a number; there is no "number" anyone can give you that will relate in a meaningful way to the reality of the actual performance of the equipment.

Until someone invents a better distortion analyzer, we must listen critically to music to determine which equipment has the lowest distortion. Our ears seem to be ultra-sensitive to various aspects of music that we cannot yet measure.

For example, there are no meaningful differences in measurable distortion between my Ayre C5-Xe player and my Sony SCD-XA5400ES player, but if you play almost any classical piano recording on the two machines, it is abundantly clear to any observer that has heard this comparison in my system that the sound of the Sony is far more true to what a real piano actually sounds like. Other music also confirms the superiority of the Sony, but for me the incredibly lifelike sound of the grand piano through the Sony is quite amazing compared to other players.

For amplification, I am currently using the Audio Research LS-26 line stage preamp and the Bryston 3B-SST2 power amplifier. The LS-26 is the best-sounding preamp I have heard at any price; the power amplifer is the best solid-state amplifier I have found for under $5000. I know there are some slightly better-sounding power amps for a LOT more money, but I am not going there (yet...lol).

All of which indicates clearly that you haven't got even the slightest notion of how to conduct a properly controlled listening test. That would explain why your measurements don't correlate with your "results." Proper listening tests produce results that do correlate with measurements.

There's been a lot of work done in this area. You should familiarize yourself with it before spouting off about a subject you know too little about.

I could care less how much shopping a person has done. I can't think of anything less relevant. It is relevant how much LISTENING to audio gear one has done, and under what conditions.

If one WERE to consider you ignorant, it MIGHT be because you repeatedly say things that most people find to be a contradiction of their experience and consequently their perception of reality.

If I were a geography teacher, for example, and a student persisted in saying that the earth was flat, I would eventually have to suspect that he was either ignorant or stupid or both. One might look out the window and use that limited experience to insist that the earth is flat, but one would also have to ignore a lot of evidence that says it is round. You seem to insist on a rigid narrow view of everything concerned with audio, while ignoring what most experienced people in the field consider extremely relevant.

Also, I think it is quite likely that in 50 years of listening to and comparing audio gear at home and in stores and at the CES, and extensive reading of the literature and comments by esteemed people in the field on these subjects, I am not only far more familiar than you with "work done in this field", but very very familiar indeed. Your statements really are starting to defy all logic and common sense, and are merely degenerating into gratuitous insults.

I also think that if you would put my description of how to audition equipment before any experienced audio reviewer or audio store owner, they would agree with it and consider it quite appropriate and straightforward. I have no idea what sort of bizarre procedure you would consider appropriate, since you have not yet made us aware of your infinite wisdom on the subject. We await it with bated breath, I assure you.

Quote without comment.

Do you mean there is sound we can hear but cannot be shown in graphic form with today's technology? Which sound is that?


Ok, so that's why you favor listening tests, fine. As for the listening tests, unless it is yet to be fully explained, the one you explained seems to lack the proper control in which case, how meaningful is the result coming out of it? Not at all, I must say.

Hate to admit it, but I agree with GEEKHEAD in that we can measure better than we can hear. Where we disagree is which measurements contribute most to the sonic signature. For my hearing, nonlinear dynamic issues are important. Static frequency response, precise level matching, and traditional static HD, IM, TIM distortion, though important, I do not feel are adequate to explain signature. My experience, my ears. My preconceived bias and expectations, acknowledging their significance in testing.

And think about the corollary: Would anyone seriously claim that there are things we can see that we can't measure? Why would we believe, in this day and age, that any of our senses are superior to our measurement instruments?

John Atkinson, the editor of Stereophile, makes the most extensive measurements possible on every piece of gear or speaker reviewed in the magazine, using the finest state-of-the art equipment. Several pages of his measured data and performance charts accompany every equipment review.

It would difficult to find a more experienced or more respected expert in the high-end audio community. His credentials and 40 years of experience in the field are very comprehensive and impressive, while yours seem to be absolutely non-existent (as far as we can tell...).

What I have said is EXACTLY what HE has said in print REPEATEDLY; that while measurements may give valuable insights into possible engineering defects in equipment, listening tests ultimately tell us more about the performance and sound quality than the best possible measurements. Nelson Pass, one of the finest amplifier designers in the field for over 30 years, also says the same thing. I think WE are right, and that your contrary opinions are only speculation. We have extensive experience in the field and an extensive technical background, while you have highly questionable opinions which apparently are based on nothing except generalized speculation. The idea that anyone would consider your opinion more credible than ours defies all logic and reason. End of story.

Yawn.....the bad joke is that you actually think listening tests full of bias are remotely accurate.

The joke here for me is that you using Stereophile as your proof

I suspect you are a fan of John Curl too

There are non-scientific sites that you might enjoy all that subjectivity better

maybe you should open your mind of and read some published findings from Dr. Geddes. Especially your inaccurate conclusion about distortion measurement abilities vs what you hear.....I will give you a hint, you can not hear distortion as much as you think You most likely are describing something else but its not the level of distortion.

Maybe you should also go to Harman and do a true controlled listening test and see how good you really are. Im sure Sean Olive would accomodate such an expert like yourself.

Are those conditions what science consider controlled?


So you come with BIAS, you do not control the listening test and you still draw conclusions I read this that you have been in acedemics....Im shocked that you do not control your listening tests properly. Im more shock that you actually are arrogant enough to believe you can control your mind during any sighted listening test

Sad, that you have been doing the same flawed listening test for 50 years....something about you can not teach and old dog new tricks comes to mind at this point

I think my testing methods are valid, and have led me to build up a system that gives me almost unparalleled sound quality; you don't.

You claim that I "do not control your listening tests properly", when you have absolutely no detailed knowledge of my tests upon which to base that statement. That does not surprise me, because knowledge seems to be conspicuously lacking from a number of your statements and allegations. I could give you the details of my testing protocols, but since you have already stated , based on no knowledge whatsoever, that my tests are biased and not properly controlled, I can only conclude that you have no interest whatsoever in the truth of the matter.

I have tremendous respect for John Atkinson's professionalism and expertise in audio testing and evaluation; you don't.

I have spent thousands of hours doing electronic design, evaluation, and measurement; you apparently haven't.

Your agenda seems to have very little to do with factual matters, and everything to do with making unjustified untrue statements and dishing out gratuitous insults.

You must forgive me if I refuse to dignify any more of this sort of trash with a response; I simply don't have the time to be bothered.

It doesn't surprise me that you're an Atkinson fanboy. You share a belief in measurements and audio voodoo. Outside the sad little "high-end industry," however, I think you'd find that both Atkinson and his magazine are widely regarded as something of a joke.


"Ours"? You are so humble.

If your reading comprehension skills were a bit stronger, you might have noticed that I've made absolutely no claim of expertise on my own behalf. I have instead presented empirical data on what humans can and cannot hear. When you or anybody else can come up with any contradictory data, I'm all ears.

But all you can do is argue from authority. And your authorities are pathetic.

From what you have described so far, they are anything but. You seem utterly unaware that there is serious science behind good listening tests—science that you have as much as admitted knowing nothing about.

But have you confirmed it with peer or other experts?