or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Questions for audiophiles.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Questions for audiophiles. - Page 2

post #31 of 100
PULLIAMM, you're good at "double-speak".
post #32 of 100
PULLIAMM, you're good at "double-speak".

That was directed at you, btw.
post #33 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

PULLIAMM, you're good at "double-speak".

That was directed at you, btw.

Try reading my posts again. I am usually direct, to the point, and say exactly what I mean. Whether or not you agree with what I say is another matter entirely.
post #34 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Try reading my posts again. I am usually direct, to the point, and say exactly what I mean. Whether or not you agree with what I say is another matter entirely.

Your dogma is that either a CDP can play a CD or it can't, and that anything else beyond that is just fluff.

So, I ask you again: What is 75% performance from a CDP?
post #35 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Your dogma is that either a CDP can play a CD or it can't, and that anything else beyond that is just fluff.

So, I ask you again: What is 75% performance from a CDP?

Now that I think about it, 75% performance from a CDP does not exist. You are correct that it either plays all CDs perfectly or else has problems like skipping or refusing to read discs. Everything else is a matter of convenience.
post #36 of 100
Thread Starter 
PULLIAMM drop it. You started this conversation with your crap about PlayStation not being
a good CD player and it's not considered as a CD player. While a lot of people praised it's good
as $6,000 CD player. You stated you are an audiophile while you aren't. You have a $160 CD
player and I have better CD player than that and I am no audiophile. You have been here
since 2005, I expected better than you.
post #37 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by like.no.other. View Post

PULLIAMM drop it. You started this conversation with your crap about PlayStation not being
a good CD player and it's not considered as a CD player. While a lot of people praised it's good
as $6,000 CD player. You stated you are an audiophile while you aren't. You have a $160 CD
player and I have better CD player than that and I am no audiophile. You have been here
since 2005, I expected better than you.

In terms of sound quality (assuming a disc that plays through with no skipping), a Sony Discman for well under $100 is as good as a $6,000 CD player. It is merely inconvenient to load, moves around too easily,lacks L/R RCA outs, and has no remote. It is because I am an audiophile that I know to spend my money on things that make a real difference, like speakers.
(Maybe the PS1 does sound good, but the Discman costs less and the PS1 has some of the same issues.)
post #38 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

In terms of sound quality (assuming a disc that plays through with no skipping), a Sony Discman for well under $100 is as good as a $6,000 CD player. It is merely inconvenient to load, moves around too easily,lacks L/R RCA outs, and has no remote. It is because I am an audiophile that I know to spend my money on things that make a real difference, like speakers.
(Maybe the PS1 does sound good, but the Discman costs less and the PS1 has some of the same issues.)

That makes it official. You are an audiophile.

Now it is irony that even you couldn't miss.
post #39 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrypt View Post

That makes it official. You are an audiophile.

I am glad that you finally figured that fact out.
post #40 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

In terms of sound quality (assuming a disc that plays through with no skipping), a Sony Discman for well under $100 is as good as a $6,000 CD player. It is merely inconvenient to load, moves around too easily,lacks L/R RCA outs, and has no remote. It is because I am an audiophile that I know to spend my money on things that make a real difference, like speakers.
(Maybe the PS1 does sound good, but the Discman costs less and the PS1 has some of the same issues.)

Remember what I said not being directed at you? Now it is, You are deaf
post #41 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by like.no.other. View Post

PULLIAMM drop it. You started this conversation with your crap about PlayStation not being
a good CD player and it's not considered as a CD player. While a lot of people praised it's good
as $6,000 CD player. You stated you are an audiophile while you aren't. You have a $160 CD
player and I have better CD player than that and I am no audiophile. You have been here
since 2005, I expected better than you.

What CD player do you currently have to compare the PS1 against?
post #42 of 100
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by classic77 View Post

What CD player do you currently have to compare the PS1 against?

My dad bought it from Japan at the price around $1,500 back then in the early 90's or
so. It was the top of the line CD player back then. I bought the PS1 because people
claim it's good as a $6,000. It out performs my Pioneer CD turntable.
post #43 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by like.no.other. View Post

My dad bought it from Japan at the price around $1,500 back then in the early 90's or
so. It was the top of the line CD player back then. I bought the PS1 because people
claim it's good as a $6,000. It out performs my Pioneer CD turntable.

No CD player from the early 90's, regardless of what it cost then, is technically as good as even the cheapest player today (though the difference may not be audible.) The DAC chips have gone through several generations of refinement since then.
post #44 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by like.no.other. View Post

My dad bought it from Japan at the price around $1,500 back then in the early 90's or
so. It was the top of the line CD player back then. I bought the PS1 because people
claim it's good as a $6,000. It out performs my Pioneer CD turntable.

If you bought the PS1 as an interesting "test" piece or nostalgia piece, you probably got your money's worth. If you bought it expecting to sound as good as a top tier, modern, dedicated CD player...you're probably going to be disappointed.

I don't know the conversion to dB's (Chu Gai probably does though...), but if it puts out 3V, it's going to be quite a bit louder than your current CD player if nothing else. Maybe it will be as loud as a $6k player...


Scott
post #45 of 100
Well, that's what the DAC literature said, but who knows how it finally ended up. Like I said, for $80, there were plenty of nice used players like the OPPO to choose from. Me, I think you hosed yourself and it felt good.
post #46 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

No CD player from the early 90's, regardless of what it cost then, is technically as good as even the cheapest player today (though the difference may not be audible.) The DAC chips have gone through several generations of refinement since then.

PULLIAMM - what do you mean by "technically as good as"? That's quite a claim to lump together ALL early 90s CDPs in a group and pit them against today's CDPs.

What about the 80s? I like the sound of out my office Sony ES CDP

- Steve O.
post #47 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorch123 View Post

PULLIAMM - what do you mean by "technically as good as"? That's quite a claim to lump together ALL early 90s CDPs in a group and pit them against today's CDPs.

What about the 80s? I like the sound of out my office Sony ES CDP

- Steve O.

"Technically better" means better on paper, in other words better specs. In terms of audibility, even the very early CD players were so good that hearing any improvement from them to today's best would be difficult or impossible. My first CD player was an early 80s Discman, and it blew away every turntable and cassette deck that I had heard until then (including the ones in high end shops.)
CD players were designed to produce sound that the human ear cannot distinguish from perfect, and they succeeded in that right from the beginning.
post #48 of 100
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

No CD player from the early 90's, regardless of what it cost then, is technically as good as even the cheapest player today (though the difference may not be audible.) The DAC chips have gone through several generations of refinement since then.

Not true. You just lost all your credibility. You are implying that the CD player from
the 90's cannot be better because the technology improves? My PlayStation 3 isn't
performing any better than that. My Pioneer CD turntables is not better than that.
My latest computer don't perform better. My latest DVD/CD player which cost $400
don't perform better. Tell me what's your current setup right now.
post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

"Technically better" means better on paper, in other words better specs. In terms of audibility, even the very early CD players were so good that hearing any improvement from them to today's best would be difficult or impossible. My first CD player was an early 80s Discman, and it blew away every turntable and cassette deck that I had heard until then (including the ones in high end shops.)
CD players were designed to produce sound that the human ear cannot distinguish from perfect, and they succeeded in that right from the beginning.

You are contradicting yourself yet again. If a CD player either works or it doesn't then any CD player from the 90's or 80's will sound as good as any CD player from today. If any technical improvement is inaudible then it's completely negligible. A PS1 is sonically as good as any CD player by your definition, whether it was designed primarily for it or not.
post #50 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by classic77 View Post

A PS1 is sonically as good as any CD player by your definition, whether it was designed primarily for it or not.

Not necessarily. While it is true that no CD player sounds better than another, this does not have to apply to devices not primarily designed for CDs (I don't know how the PS1 sounds, I only pointed out the undeniable fact that CD playback is a low priority for it.). You are correct, however, that the improved specs of today's CD players do not make them audibly better than 80's models, simply because there was never any room for improvement in that regard.
post #51 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by like.no.other. View Post

You are implying that the CD player from
the 90's cannot be better because the technology improves?

Obviously. DACs are computer chips, which improve (while dropping in price) at an exponential rate. Ten years is a lifetime in that world. Of course, as I already pointed out, the first CD players were so good already that all those improvements are just on paper. All CD players sound flawless and always have.
post #52 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

All CD players sound flawless and always have.

What about DVD players? They were primarily designed for video. Do all DVD players sound the same...and sound equally as good as any CD player (that was designed as a CD player as opposed to a device that just so happens to be able to play CDs)?


Scott
post #53 of 100
The cheapest DVD player that I have played CDs on was an $80 Toshiba. It did sound as good as my CD player (and thus as good as any CD player.) If a person were looking for top quality sound at a bargain price, and didn't care about the convenience of a changer, then that would be an excellent choice.
post #54 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAM View Post

The cheapest DVD player that I have played CDs on was an $80 Toshiba. It did sound as good as my CD player

That's the first thing you've said that makes sense.


Scott
post #55 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssteel01 View Post

That's the first thing you've said that makes sense.


Scott

The full sentence, with the parenthetical remark included, makes sense.
post #56 of 100
Quote:


the first CD players were so good already that all those improvements are just on paper. All CD players sound flawless and always have.

Some were good, some weren't so good. I can point to a few examples why some earlier players had problems. As far as DAC prices dropping exponentially, well, DAC's have never been nor are now terribly expensive. As time has gone on, one thing we've seen is the ability of DAC's to play different formats like mp3's, CDR's, the plus and minus variants, incorporation within the DAC to do different things, and all that good stuff. I guess, in a sense, you can interpret increased functionality as 'prices dropping'. Personally, I don't happen to think that audio reproduction attracts our best talents.
post #57 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

It would merely surprise me if it were good, since that is obviously far from its primary function.

Reading 1s and 0s is far from it's primary function?

Your life is one big contradiction.
post #58 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuthed View Post

Reading 1s and 0s is far from it's primary function?

Your life is one big contradiction.

Reading the CD format (as opposed to the game format) is far from its primary function. I overestimated your intelligence by thinking you could figure that out. Sorry, it won't happen again.
post #59 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PULLIAMM View Post

Not necessarily. While it is true that no CD player sounds better than another, this does not have to apply to devices not primarily designed for CDs (I don't know how the PS1 sounds, I only pointed out the undeniable fact that CD playback is a low priority for it.). You are correct, however, that the improved specs of today's CD players do not make them audibly better than 80's models, simply because there was never any room for improvement in that regard.

With all the improvements in DAC, lasers, drivers etc, I am pretty sure that they are no worse than early CD players, that according to you where perfect. Note that the PS1 is able to read CDs at a much higher RPM than most CD players (think data discs) so its drive does not suck that much, does it?
post #60 of 100
I thought there was a tool to lock abusive threads...such as this one. Someone should lock this thread, so people don't have to read through a page of insults.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Questions for audiophiles.