what's your CD player?

[Eddie]

Johnny,

It's a CA7ES, that's what it says on the front of the tray. Bought it used, probably about 5-10 years old but appears to be in very good condition, no problems in the 7-8 months I've been using it.

I did hear an improvement over the cheapie Panasonic DVD player I was using before---smoother and warmer sound. However I have been told on a different audio forum that there have been some big improvements in CD players during the past 10 years.

This is the first forum I've come across where that's been challenged so I'm eager to hear more about it.

BTW Johnny, how would you compare the Denon 2900 you demoed to your Toshiba 3950? I heard about the Toshibas only from the referenceaudiomods.com site, they claim it equals the sound quality of "$300-600 players."

http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Me...gory_Code=MODS

[Eddie]

Curtis,

what's the difference between the Pioneer 563 and the 578?

Pricegrabber has the 563 at $260 and the 578 at a mere $110.

[Eddie]

E. Horton,

Do you use the 578 for music only, or movies too?

Have you ever listened to more expensive CDPs for comparison? If yes, which ones?

I'm a glutton for details, as you can see...lol

[Eddie]

Randy wrote: "I have A/B'd the dacs to my Denon 3803 reciever and I can't tell the difference."

You mean you listened to the XCD-88 using an analog connection (using the 88's DACs) versus using a digital connection (using the 3803's DACs)?

Are receivers in that class supposed to have very good DACs?

I did the same test with my CDP and my Marantz 5400 receiver, also couldn't hear any difference...is that a good or a bad sign though?

[Eddie]

Kurt,

do you remember which expensive CD players you were A/Bing with? Also, what was the budget CDP that you were using in that test?

I'd be very glad to follow the advice on this forum and just get a better subwoofer---spent a couple of days with a Hsu STF-2 and was very impressed, compared to my horrific JBL it was like going from a Yugo to a BMW!

[curtis]

off topic...

I just loaned my STF-2 to my brother....he was complaining about his older Klipsch sub sounding boomy/bad.

Well...it doesn't look like is he going to return the the STF-2 to me without a fight. In fact he says "makes me feel like I should upgrade my speakers now too."

[Eddie]

LOL, Quinn has no idea how close I came to pulling something like that on him myself!

[Lou-the-dog]

Randy wrote: "I have A/B'd the dacs to my Denon 3803 reciever and I can't tell the difference."

You mean you listened to the XCD-88 using an analog connection (using the 88's DACs) versus using a digital connection (using the 3803's DACs)?


Are receivers in that class supposed to have very good DACs?

I did the same test with my CDP and my Marantz 5400 receiver, also couldn't hear any difference...is that a good or a bad sign though?

Yes, that is how I set it up.I don't think the DAC's in Denon recievers have been given much credit for being top end or even close to it. Really the only thing the A/B did for me was that I could use either dac and the sound wouldn't be any different.

I don't look at the fact that both dac's sounded the same as a bad thing. I am happy with the sound out of my Denon and was actually impressed that the XCD88 dacs sounded as good. I think, on this issue, I am tending to be in the camp of Bikeman...dac design is mature and differences will be small to none. I also am tending to agree with KurtC...spend money on great speakers and good recordings...these are differences that can easily be heard.

Randy

[bikeman]

bikeman,

yes please continue. I'm curious about which models specifically you've heard across the price spectrum.

For my hypothesis to be true, it really dosen't matter what decent quality audio players we're talking about. It is also not part of my argument that the differences that people hear don't exist. I am reasonably certain that those differences exist. Where my argument differs from the norm is where those differences have their origin.
We have traditionally ascribed these audible differences to the technology. DAC technology has evolved over the last decade into a mature state. What's available at the low end is very similar to what's available at the high end. Yet the discussions have not changed in the slightless. We still hear these same audible differences that we heard when DAC's were in their infancy.
The answer as I see it is very simple and yet extremely complex. This tread that Aaron posted earlier today is a good example of what I'm talking about.

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/sho...1362#post11362

How we process sensory information in our brain is only now becoming a serious field of study in neuroscience and psychology. We use different parts of our brain when we listen, see, feel, touch or smell depending on a lotta factors. Even the information available to us changes which part of the brain is processing that information. When we use different parts of out brain to process information, the result is indeed different. What we preceive (hear in this case) is highly dependent on which internal process we used in the first place.
Any difference in the technology can be quantified. When the differences can't be quantified, there are other factors at play and identifiying those factors is well beyound the reach of audio discussion forums so we continue to ascribe these differences to the one part of the equation that we partly understand.
There is nothing wrong or un-manly about it all being in our heads. I find it pretty cool to have such a complex piece of equipment available to me whenever I need it. It's a feature, not a liability.

David

[Kurt C.]

Kurt,

do you remember which expensive CD players you were A/Bing with? Also, what was the budget CDP that you were using in that test?

Bikeman is right that it doesn't really matter...however, since I can see that you still aren't convinced that brand names are irrelavant: the 'decent' player was my panasonic RP-56. The good players included ones made by NAD, Linn, Parasound, and one other, which I think was a ~$3K Arcam.

When comparing the analog output of these players, neither I nor several other bystanders who we roped into the test could identify which was which. All of them did sound a bit better than the the test CD played on my laptop and output through the headphone jack, but... it has been dropped several times and has occasional gaps from a loose connection to the left channel.

I'm not against buying expensive CD players. Hell, if I had money to burn I'd spend $2K just to be able to hit the open/close button on several of those beauties, but I won't lie to myself or anyone else by trying to justify the purchase on the basis of sound quality.