or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Audiophile CD Player? Which One?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audiophile CD Player? Which One? - Page 3

post #61 of 497
^^ those "tone def staticians" know more about what makes good sound then anyone relaying on magazine or peer reviews. Enjoy the music man!
post #62 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIKKITIK View Post

It's funny how these debates are dominated by tone-deaf statisticians. The energy they put forth trying to beat their opinions and values into others is awesome smile.gif
Me, I'm happy for ANYONE who has arrived at a point where they can "hear the music", smile, sit back, and relax. Did yours keep you and the wife up too late again, listening and tapping? Mine did, damn proud of it too.
As I remember, that is the basic point, true?

You have us pegged completely backward. We are the ones who don't obsess with sound and simply listen to enjoy the music. It is the audiophiles with the obssession.
post #63 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIKKITIK View Post

It's funny how these debates are dominated by tone-deaf statisticians.

Did you mean "tone deaf" as a general insult or do you actually have access to information about people's ability to follow musical tones?
Quote:
The energy they put forth trying to beat their opinions and values into others is awesome smile.gif

How is this different from people who seem to think that everything sounds different?
Quote:
Me, I'm happy for ANYONE who has arrived at a point where they can "hear the music", smile, sit back, and relax.

Is obsession with non-existent audible differences a prerequisite for "hearing the music"?
Quote:
Did yours keep you and the wife up too late again, listening and tapping? Mine did, damn proud of it too.

I take it you never heard of headphones...
post #64 of 497
See, you assume smile.gif
Wife was up, sitting beside me enjoying it as much as I. No headphones needed.

Enjoy the music ALL!
post #65 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

^^ those "tone def staticians" know more about what makes good sound then anyone relaying on magazine or peer reviews. Enjoy the music man!

dear Jason I take it you are insulting sonic67?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

I did my own tests, measurements. I know what to "look for". I did my own ABX to see if is meaningful. I don't need nobody control to know what I heard.
Your "controlled" tests will show nothing useful. The are the same like saying that holding a hand in ice and the other in boiling water, in average you feel good.
Statistics without 'population standard deviation' understanding means squat. If only 1 person in 100 hears the difference, the difference exists, indifferent if the rest 99 can't hear it.
post #66 of 497
Actually, we share some of the same views.
TAS and S'pile = pimps for the "elite"
$$$ for cables, no - not for me thanks
$$$$ for Xxxx's amp/cd/dac = fantastic sound, uh no not in my experience

Where I take exception is the total belief in measurements AND total discredit of sensory input. The, "It can't be quantified" = it doesn't exist, "I haven't experienced it" = it doesn't exist attitude presented. The, ALL science, no art philosophy.
Measurement and listening tests, can and should, co-exist.
If you find a WaveRadio lets you "hear the music", I'm happy for you. If you spent $4-grand on a set of cables the let you "hear the music", I'm (semi??) happy for you.
But in either of the above, I'm suspect over the outcome while accepting your choice.

I don't believe ALL components that measure the same, sound the same. I do not believe the good measurements guarantee good sound.
Happy listening to all, no matter how you get there smile.gif
To the OP,
Neither of the Denon's are anything special sound-wise, and are fairly slow handling. A modern Blu-ray would probably be a better choice.
post #67 of 497
Quote:
Where I take exception is the total belief in measurements AND total discredit of sensory input.
IOW, you take exception with a straw man. No one discounts sensory input. The point is that measurements and sensory input correlate remarkably well—assuming we are talking about only aural sensory input. Aural sensory input contaminated by other information doesn't correlate with anything, and isn't even stable or consistent with itself.
Quote:
I don't believe ALL components that measure the same, sound the same.
Then you have a lot to learn, son. Two components that measure the same have to sound the same. The only real debate is about how far the measurements have to diverge before the differences become audible.
post #68 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIKKITIK View Post


I don't believe ALL components that measure the same, sound the same.

For components that measure the same, to sound the same, you have to do the right measurements. In the past measurements were less sensitive and less complete. Less was known about what and how to measure.

In the early 1970's I went to a conference at Northwestern University titled "Ear Versus Gear", where this very topic was discussed by leading academics and people from the audio industry. If you have a long enough memory you'll recognize the name Julian Hirsch, who spoke. At that time the industry was troubled by the fact that measurements and what people thought they heard did not always converge.

That was then and this is now. Modern measurement tools such as FFT analyzers and other applications of computers were just emerging and were barely represented in the early 1970s.

It turns out that many of the things that people thought they heard were illusions created by biases, and by 1978 this source of mysterious results was under control.

Another important milepost is marked by Zwicker and Fastle's Phychoacoustics Facts and Models which covers work about the mechanics of human perception that was becoming completed to a useful degree in the late 1980s.
Quote:
I do not believe the good measurements guarantee good sound.

There are two dimensions to good sound. The easy one is knowing how low important sources of colorations and audible artifacts have to be in order to be inaudible, and this is well known. The other is which audible colorations are the most tolerable or euphonic. This question probably has an infinite number of answers, and is not nearly as well known.
post #69 of 497
What about the unmeasurable effect and potential interaction of endorphin release from the pleasure centres of the brain? For example if you take 100 people and subject them to exactly the same force of a thorny whip is it possible to say every person will feel the exact amount of pain?

Sorry not sure if this isa good analogy. My brain is just wandering before my coffee kick
post #70 of 497
Quote:
For example if you take 100 people and subject them to exactly the same force of a thorny whip is it possible to say every person will feel the exact amount of pain?
No, but what is the relevance of this to audio? We're not asking whether different people will derive different levels of pleasure from the same sound. Of course they will. We're asking whether a single individual can tell two different sounds apart.
post #71 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by joker97 View Post

What about the unmeasurable effect and potential interaction of endorphin release from the pleasure centres of the brain?

Endomorphin release can be imaged by treating slices of the brain with the right chemical cocktail, incubation, with the actual imaging being done by scanners available off-the-shelf from GE and others.

So, the effects you are concerned with are measurable, its just that we're a little short of human volunteers for the current measurement technique due to its lethal side-effects. ;-)
post #72 of 497
one can measure effect of endorphin release i suppose but how do you measure its effect, how long it lasts (mine probably lasts 20min-2 months ... although with my new found HSU ULS 15 i am hoping it will last longer than that!) without the confounding influence of other psychosocial stressors ... etc
post #73 of 497
Quote:
one can measure effect of endorphin release i suppose but how do you measure its effect, how long it lasts
Why do you think you need to measure this?
post #74 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Quote:
one can measure effect of endorphin release i suppose but how do you measure its effect, how long it lasts
Why do you think you need to measure this?

It would be fun to measure endomorphin release as stimulated by audio placebos. I'm sure that the effect exists.

The problem with effects that are stimulated by placebos is that they lack reliability, particularly staying power.

We see that all the time around here - people who upgrade their systems with evaluations that are highly related to to placebo effects seem to be on the equipment upgrade treadmill.
post #75 of 497
And people who 'test' ABX convinced that there will not find any differences will not actually find that 'true' by placebo? Did you even try using a control sound 'defective' by design to see if your method can detect false negatives?
Oh, no, that would be science.
post #76 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

And people who 'test' ABX convinced that there will not find any differences will not actually find that 'true' by placebo? Did you even try using a control sound 'defective' by design to see if your method can detect false negatives?
Oh, no, that would be science.

Once again showing complete ignorance of the topic you rail against.
post #77 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

And people who 'test' ABX convinced that there will not find any differences will not actually find that 'true' by placebo? Did you even try using a control sound 'defective' by design to see if your method can detect false negatives?
Oh, no, that would be science.

No, there is no placebo involved. However, there is one benefit. After enough experience with bias controlled testing, you tend to lose the "expectation" bias. When you don't expect things that don't different to sound different, they don't sound different even sighted as long as levels are matched. I think it makes you a better listener for things, like speakers, that do sound different.
post #78 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

And people who 'test' ABX convinced that there will not find any differences will not actually find that 'true' by placebo?

This often happens. The ABX DBT listening environment often has the beneficial side-effect of putting the listeners into a sort of perceptual free fall where they feel forced to follow the evidence of their ears, regardless of their prejudices.

People have definitely been surprised by the positive results that they have obtained when comparing two pieces of equipment that they thought sounded the same.
Quote:
Did you even try using a control sound 'defective' by design to see if your method can detect false negatives?

Absolutely. We calll that listener training. I've already tried to explain this to you several times.

Just to refresh your memory, it is possible and has been done, to make audio files that people can compare where the effect being tested is enhanced to be many times larger than it is with real world equipment. For example if an amplifier has 0.002% second order THD, I can create an audio file where that is enhanced to the point where it is actually 20% THD with the same relative spectral content of distortion products. If you can't hear that,nthen you aren't a good candidate for this test. Then we can take the listener in steps down to 2% THD, 0.2% THD, and 0.02% THD or whatever steps we wish. We then note where reliable perception becomes too difficult.

13 years ago I built a site with 100's of files like these, called www.pcabx.com. Tens of thousdands of files were downloaded, and eventually I lost interest in it. It is still out there on the wayback site.
Quote:
Oh, no, that would be science.

It seems like you are ignoring past detailed explanations in a rush to negative judgement of ABX.
post #79 of 497
Ah, so you are not using any of those today... Not testing any $30 Wallyworld Bluray players versus decent ones. I see, you are clear now. Just assume that "everything sound the same" and live is pink.
post #80 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Ah, so you are not using any of those today... Not testing any $30 Wallyworld Bluray players versus decent ones. I see, you are clear now. Just assume that "everything sound the same" and live is pink.
I see you still don't understand how modern audio reproduction works.

At least arny and others have made objective attempts in understanding and explaining how audio reproduction works.

Im sure your local community college offers some sort of electrical theory and/or physics courses. You should check into them. Rather then deny what is known, you could actually learn a thing or three.
post #81 of 497
Just buy a oppo 105
A straightwire super hdmi cable
pangae isolation feet
And two moon rocks to place on top of each front speaker.
Listen ...enjoy..and lets call this back and forth bickering..done!
The oppo offers the best of all worlds..at least in this solar system.
audio/ video is top notch!
Can not get much better for the $
The above post is just my own personal opinion
and in no way should be taken any other way®
post #82 of 497
Quote:
Can not get much better for the $
And can't get much worse for a tenth of it. smile.gif
post #83 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by esh516 View Post

Just buy a oppo 105
A straightwire super hdmi cable
pangae isolation feet
And two moon rocks to place on top of each front speaker.
Listen ...enjoy..and lets call this back and forth bickering..done!
The oppo offers the best of all worlds..at least in this solar system.
audio/ video is top notch!
Can not get much better for the $
The above post is just my own personal opinion
and in no way should be taken any other way®

Unless if I am mistaken, what's the need for a 105 versus a 103 if you're using HDMI?

And what the hell is it about moon rocks and isolation feet? lol
Edited by bo130 - 8/18/13 at 2:26pm
post #84 of 497
True
And no comment!
Lol...there's enough UFO/paranormal/tweek theory's being battled here in these threads!
post #85 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Ah, so you are not using any of those today...

Without quoting, its hard to know what you mean.
Quote:
Not testing any $30 Wallyworld Bluray players versus decent ones.

For the record my personal BD player is a Panasonic BD-65 which cost me about $125. It is connected via a digital link to an Onkyo AVR 1913 AVR. What's wrong with that?

The Oppo 105 seems to be very costly because of a ton of features that I don't need because they are handled by other equipment in my system.

http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-105/

4k up-scaling
SACD
2D to 3D conversion
HDMI inputs
USB DAC
Coax/Optical inputs
DMP and DMR
SMB/CIFS Access
Headphone Amplifier
Balanced Connectors
7.1-Channel Analog Output
Dolby® TrueHD
DTS-HD Master Audio™
VUDU HD Movie
Pandora Internet Radio
Netflix streaming
Rhapsody Online Music
etc. etc.

Are you making fun of people because their choices aren't exactly your choices?
Quote:
I see, you are clear now. Just assume that "everything sound the same"

I've never said that "everything sound the same", so your inclusion of this phrase in quotes would appear to be fraudulent.
Quote:
and live is pink.

With literally thousands of live recording for hire on my resume, it is probable that I have a lot more up close experience with live music than many.
post #86 of 497
Some models you might want to look at. You may have a hard time finding some of these in stores you can demo at, but you may be able to find them at Crutchfield / Audio Advisor with a good return policy.

Universal Players:
Marantz UD7007 ~ $1K
Marantz UD5007 ~ $500
Oppo BDP-103 ~ $500
Oppo BDP-105 ~ $1K
Cambridge Audio Azur 752BD ~ $1.2K

CD Transports Only, both of these can be used as a DAC as well, hook up an Apple TV you have Airplay, or plug in your Ipod loaded w/ loseless audio and it will use the DAC in the player.
Marantz SA8004 - $1K
Marantz SA11S3 - $4K
post #87 of 497
^Crikey those are expensive! eek.gif
post #88 of 497
I agree that part of those prices is "branding", not reflected in quality. It's a "diminishing returns" law.
But saying that "everything sounds the same because humans can't hear" is just taking it to extreme...
post #89 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

But saying that "everything sounds the same because humans can't hear" is just taking it to extreme...
confused.gif
post #90 of 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk@pcavtech View Post

Low end systems can be fantastic performers. There's a little $30 digital player called the Sansa Clip. It performs as well as many people's whole system and easily reveals the audible problems in problematical recordings. It sounds (and measures) about as good as a $250 iPod.
That's the low end that is given as example.
I had one of those and my son the second. Both POS. It proves nothing but the bias...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Audiophile CD Player? Which One?