Expensive CD players, are they worth it? - Page 18  

So the fact that some guy "gave up arguing" is proof that what he said was right?

No, no one has presented any reason to doubt the validity of any of the tests I cited. Maybe you should actually go find those articles and read them before commenting on them.

Your responses are rude and dismissive for the most part. This is the first place I have ever run into, "low end snobs."

this as a must read for all the top posters in this thread.
It is the first post in a thread that will likely be very interesting and will not turn out like this cesspool.
User Name Posts
mcnarus 52
scientest 49
PULLIAMM 40
Pitot Static 35
DulcetTones 31
FMW 29


The below is a copy and paste from another board.


tweaks that really work!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this would be very beneficial for the novice right thru the most experienced Audiophile.

There are a couple of rules first:

1) Things that you suggest, should have already proven their worth in your system; at least "in your humble opinion".

2) Don't knock any suggestions, remember they are here for your benefit. Don't like it, simple don't use it.

3) Please don't stray into the scientific "prove it" realm, remember we are here to share ideas that can improve our listening experience.

The question was "are expensive CD players worth it." Our response was it depends on the motivation. If the motivation is better sonics then, no, they aren't worth it.

I've been where you are. I'm criticizing it. You haven't been where I am and yet you are criticizing it. Go do some bias controlled tests and then you can comment with experience instead of just opinion. What causes the fear of these tests?

I don't know if you've ever had a conversation with the owners of this forum, but they're very much in the subjectivist camp based on what I've read of them. I've seen them discussing differences among gear plenty of times...

You're a little out in laa-laa land with the rest of what you said, as I pretty much tend to do on here what most everyone else does - talk A/V gear. That's kinda what I thought this forum was for.

And who could possibly think that science could improve our listening experience?

As for the length of this thread, if you aren't interested in the discussion, go read something else. No one's holding you here.

In a brief summary I will say, yes, but it comes down to your complete system and no point putting expensive players in a cheap-ish setup.
I agree there is a cut off point that offends our principles of paying over, now for some that seems to be $350 or $500, for me that figure is closer to $2k to $2.7k and my bias would make it pointless listening to more expensive machines.
I do not think it is one thing that makes it more enjoyable for me to listen to one CD player over another, but consider those who listen to amps; it is over a period of time they feel more relaxed with a particular product over another.
Just look at how many love McIntosh amps and suggest replacing Rotel/etc for them in systems.

Now before anyone says there is much more going on in an amp, there is a lot going on with CD players as explained earlier, many times.

I still stand with saying the sceptics are on one side of the fence, and the believers on the other side of the same one.
Regarding blind testing, like quite a few believers we believe that no switch box should be involved and if doing the test it should at least involve excellent products through the chain, furthermore the music should always be played again from the beginning.

To give an idea that differences can exist I am including an URL of a blind ABX interconnect cabling test that meets the criteria; good equipment, no switch/comparator box,music always played from beginning each time.

Now cables are even more of a sore subject than CD players, and lets be honest has far less parts to make it up.
Of interest, the believers managed 100% correct identification of the cables, the sceptics did not.
A further challenge was that comparing the music had to be done from memory due to the manual changing of interconnects.
To be a bit sneaky they also included a test where the cable was never changed, the believer was the only one not to choose as he felt that he had too much difficulty telling them apart.
http://www.avreview.co.uk/news/article/mps/uan/1863

Anyway I will be posting a few more topics not to argue any points but to:
1.clarify the technology andthe potential impact using AES papers and an IEEE presentation.
2. A frank discussion between some of the leading engineers from different companies, including someone's favourite Alesis representative
3. Comparing a moderate cheap CD thats recommended by some audiophile sceptics to more expensive ones, specifically whats different, and what I want from a CD player that you just cannot get from cheaper ones.

The future posts do not need anyone responding on as they do not discuss in anyway blind ABX format testing, but they are highly relevant to the question:
"Are more expensive players worth it?".
Hopefully they will provide information that at least some will find useful.

Cheers
DT

Are they worth it? Yes and no. When it is time to buy a new cd player my budget will probably be under $500. From my experience with a friends Marantz player I could tell no difference in sound quality between his player and my Panasonic DVD/CD player both using there respected analog out. However the build quality of the Marantz was far superior. I want my next player to be heavy duty and last me many years so I will hopefully spend more for build quality but I still can't hear the difference between two players.

As far as things that I could hear a huge difference in sound in order are as follows:

1. Room Treatments, A major improvement in sound quality even with crappy HTIB speakers.


2. A REAL subwoofer, upgrading to a hard hitting full range sub made my listening experience incredible.


3. Speakers, There is no doubt that speakers are the most subjective piece of equipment as far a audio goes. But it is in the ear of the beholder to decide which is best.

Things that make no difference in sound in my room

1. Cables, this issue has been beaten worse than a dead horse

Maybe, but the point stands that on their blind test the believers hit 100% while the sceptics hit 50%.
And I wanted to use it to highlight that if they can pick up difference on that, then imagine a CD player that has to combine a digitial side with an analogue.
Also the point is that they used no box/played music from the start each time/used reasonably expensive gear, and was setup by someone who really did not care what the result would be but was getting annoyed with all the biting comments (mostly from the sceptics I must say) between sceptics and believers.

Cheers
DT

DT, no switch box is necessary for doing bias controlled listening tests. It is a convenience, not a necessity. Although I haven't tested it personally, I'm willing to bet that a switch box wouldn't produce an audible difference either. Sorry, until you folks actually do the tests and comment from a position of experience instead of hopes and beliefs and opinions, your arguments simply don't hold any water.

Again, we have experienced what you have experienced with all the beliefs and myths and six figure expenditures. We understand exactly why and how you believe what you believe. Give us a little credit for having actually tested the other side of the fence and found it to be more accurate and truthful. Do the tests. No guessing, no complaining, no wishing, no believing. Just do them and find out for yourself. You obviously aren't going to accept anything from me.

I am just pointing out that a blind ABX test came up with a different result than you guys on an even tougher subject, that of interconnect cables.
Just curious, with your testing you do a similar thing:
1. Use $10k of equipment
2. Have it set so the music always starts from the beginning.
3. Played the same music 3 times, once for each product and the last time for the person to identify the source.
4. Repeat many times point 3.
5. No other product in the system (such as a switch/comparator box).
6. Do the test with a sceptic/believer concurrently to see if results match, but both interested in music and hifi.
7. The setup agreed by both the sceptic and believer.

Also a key factor I feel is that their tests was setup and conducted by a person who is not biased and is not looking for a certain result.

But anyway, as their tests show it was only the believers who could consistently tell an accurate difference, not the sceptics.

Cheers
DT

I've never communicated with them and I have no idea what kinds of discussions they have but, if they are reading this thread then my message is "DO THE TESTS."

No we used $40,000 worth of equipment.


Yes, it is more convenient to do it that way.


No we normally did 15 iterations with a random series of equipment substitutions.


No we did the iterations with 11 listeners (usually.) That would make a total of 165 iterations.


I've never used comparator switch boxes for my tests. We do the equipment subs by unplugging the equipment under test and then plugging in the next on in the random series.


No we used members of an audiophile society. I think they were probably all believers before the tests started.


It is not a key factor at all. The tests are designed to eliminate bias. That would include everyone's bias.


What tests were those? I assume that it is meant to indicate that believers have better hearing than non believers? I wouldn't go too far in that direction.

We did cable tests by the way. We tested 15 different pairs of interconnect cables. One of the 15 had an audible difference from the others. Subsequent measurements indicated that the cable had high inductance. In other words, it was a cable design specifically to reduce high frequency content. I've never said all cables are free of sonic meddling. Nor have I ever said that all CD players sound alike. I think I've been pretty consistent in my statements. I would say by extension from our tests that all competently made interconnect cables have no sonic effect on an audio system. There are people that actually make active cables designed to alter the frequency response. They are equalizers. Equalizers can change the sound of an audio system so dramatically that biased and bias controlled tests produce the same results.

I'll offer you the same thing I've offered others. Put up $3000 to cover my travel expenses and my fee. I will do the same. I will come to your location and test any passive interconnect cables that do not have significantly high capacitance or inductance measurements and we'll have a bias controlled test with any listeners you want to choose. If we get a statistically significant audible difference you keep my $3000. If we do not, I keep yours. You in?

Actually, there's far too little information in that report to draw this conclusion. For starters, there were apparently differences in levels, which were not corrected for. That alone makes the whole exercise invalid. None of the results reported were statistically significant.


Looked to me like it was conducted in an audio shop that sells high-end cables, by a publication that promotes high-end cables.

Yes, I think we're all pretty clear on your message

Man, not sure how to say this, but if you don't even know what peer review means I can't help but wonder why you are trying to argue your points so vehemently?

Peer review is done prior to publishing. You cannot get published in a peer reviewed journal without having gone through the peer review process of that journal. For example, you will find papers from the institution I work for published in Science, Nature (a recent one was on how the hearing mechanism actually works at the molecular level), Cell, and the New England Journal of Medicine. I may have missed some, but these are widely considered the most prestigious peer reviewed journals in the scientific world.

The paper I cited was published by The Acoustical Society of Japan in their journal: The Acoustical Society of Japan

I saw Chu mention that he had a copy of the Benjamin / Ganon paper, but nothing else? That paper compliments the paper I pointed at (which is why they reference it). I will note that it is ironic that you now appear to think a paper that you previously dismissed as not applicable now carries enough weight to somehow dispute a very commonly cited paper on jitter.


Uh, no. The paper I cite has authors who think they can improve on some of the methodology employed by Benjamin and Gannon. The two papers are different attacks on the same issue yielding similar results that compliment each other.

Someone wishing to dispute either of these papers would need to propose an an experiment that countered some hypothesis underlying these papers, perform the experiment, gather the data, and get it published in a respected peer reviewed journal. To my knowledge that has not happened though I certainly don't claim to keep on top of this area of research in it's entirety.

One more time: can you point at any peer reviewed science showing an audible difference between two different but properly functioning DACs or CD players?

Sorry you feel that way. At the point I wrote that I had endured several attacks on my character and reputation and countless baseless insuations that I did not know what I was taking about. Frankly, I felt I was being rather reserved in my response...

However, FWIW, I do take some pride in being a low end snob. I make an income that puts me well within the upper 10% US bracket. I could easily spend more than I do on this hobby. IMO, the fact that I instead choose to spend my money wisely, based on extensive research, is not something that I feel in any way ashamed of.

We are talking about interconnect here, what adjustments do you do when 2 different CD players are in a test (using the same pre-amp I assume)?
In other words your adjusting a parameter that is different between 2 products.
Anyway the cables were standard with no modifications done to them to affect attenuation.

The statistically important and simple fact is that the believers got 100% correct, and people like the sceptics got 50% correct.
Furthermore it is the sceptics who said to them it was sound level while the believers said it was more muffled. Now if it was that obvious why did they fail half of the tests when the believers (those who can hear differences) made no mistakes.

Still I can see that there is a difference in their methodology to yours, with respect to actually playing the identical music three times in a row Source A/Source B/ Source Random to be identified.
This was repeated X times, X being 10 different songs.

Even if you do not like how they set this up different to you.
Yes these were audiophiles, and yes it was balanced between having 2 parties, those who say they can hear a difference and those who cannot what you do not like is that it was the sceptics to be proved to have poorer hearing.

In a way identical to the argument here.
If you interested contact AVREviews to see if they would be willing to do the exact same setup but this time testing CD sources, however I doubt they will pay for your time.
I would prefer their setup and test any day to yours, the tests you resort to I feel are biased towards those who want to prove there is no difference.

If their tests were flawed you would expect everyone to get 100%.
However what is funny is that the pattern indicates those who argue there is no difference did not hear any difference consistently, while those who says there are heard it 100%.

Cheers
DT

As I said a few posts earlier I have 2-3 AES papers, and 1 IEEE presentation.
I do not think you can moan anymore about the papers I present once I do....

So far I am waiting for the other stuff to die down, and really gain the enthusiasm that you and a few others amazingly suck out of me very quickly.

Cheers
DT

Ya see you almost did it.
If you could just post, "the fact that I instead choose to spend my money based on extensive research" instead of " the fact that I instead choose to spend my money wisely, based on extensive research" you'd be expressing your view and people would not get so defensive i.e. adversarial. I doubt it even bothers most people that you portray yourself as a low end snob, it's how it's said.
You could probably loose the "10% US bracket" line as well but it is not nearly as critical.

Even worse is when people like FMW and PULLIAMM run from thread to thread pompously pronouncing themselves the final word on everything audio and posting against the spirit of an audio site which is to share info not declare war on differing opinions and fight to the death.

No, not here. Amps are amps.I have been told that here as well.
Speakers are the only difference. I am still waiting for the price point to be announced when speakers make no difference.
CD players is established at $300
Amps ?
Speakers?

DT, in my experience level matching isn't necessary with interconnect cable listening tests so I doubt that was the issue. If a cable somehow managed to change the level of the signal it carried (assuming the same length as other cables) then it is one of those cables designed to act as an equalizer.

However, if results were significant for one group and random for the other, then somehow biases weren't controlled for one group. The reason I say that is that these kinds of tests have been done many, many times. The results are always the same as the results we had with our test. And our test, as I mentioned was 100% believers that produced a random or, at least, statistically insignificant result about audibility - again with the exception of the one cable pair designed to be a "tone control."

Having biases completely controlled is absolutely essential. It is the biases that cause the audible differences when actual audible differences are subtle to non existent. The belief that believers hear better than non believers or that believers become believers because they hear better simply doesn't hold any water at all. Too many tests have been done to disprove that.

I stand by my offer and I offer it to the same audio store that did the tests to which you refer. We'll use the same listeners and the same cables as long as none of them have excessive capacitance or inductance measurements. I will do a truly bias controlled test that will satisfy everyone involved with its fairness. If their believers can hear audible differences between normally designed cables then they can make $3000. PM me if you or they want to set up a test.

No, you haven't.


There isn't one.


By whom? You can get audibly transparent CD players for less than $100.

That would be my assumption, too. But the subjects in this test apparently felt that there were level differences, which at the very least requires that the cords be tested to determine if this is so. That the organizers of this test failed to do so is one more reason to suspect they did not know what they were doing.


The results were significant for neither "group."

Should be interesting. One suggestion if I may; I would suggest starting a new thread for each paper adding pointers to the new discussion threads here (and elsewhere) as appropriate. That way the points made about each paper will be clearer and easier to follow and you may not get as much irrelevant discussion on each thread.

Man, if you're worried about that level of semantic detail you should probably just step away from the Internet altogether...

I get to compose responses here between meetings, design sessions and crisis management. There's not a lot of time for careful word smithing.

I do feel my actions are wise, that's why I choose them. If that, or other of my actions offend you, I apologize. You are free to add me to your ignore list if need be, I won't be offended.

The mistake was putting "science" in the name of the site. This was flypaper to "scientists" to come on here, thinking that their word was the final one and that somehow their opinions were actively solicited.

This is akin to the problem they had in high school; if a girl actually spoke to them as opposed to making fun, they though she was interested.

This is a hobbyist forum. The goal is to discuss this topic as a hobby. Any other discussions are actually the tangential ones, including those implying a "scientific" bent.

I'm a hobbyist discussing this topic as a hobby. So is Scientest. Nobody is paying him to post here. The rest of your post appears to be a slur on scientists and doesn't merit a response because it had nothing to do with the topic.