what's your CD player?

[Eddie]

I am considering the NAD c542, Onix X88cd, and Pioneer 578 (decreasing order of pricing), running 340s off of some vintage NAD separates.

Was also looking at the Harman Kardon FL8385 which goes for around $100 refurb from Harman Audio on eBay.

Oh and the other one I'm sort of curious about is the Denon 2900.

Am wondering if anybody has had any experience with any of those 5 players and how much of a difference they hear when moving up on the price scale.

My current CDP is a Sony ES carousel, it made a noticeable improvement over my cheapie Panasonic DVD player which was a bit harsh sounding.

I am reading a lot of great feedback on the Pioneer, some are claiming it to be something of a giant-killer (common enough cliche in audio these days, lol).

I definitely want to keep my budget under $500, the lower it is the more I'll have left to put into a decent sub, my current JBL e150 is atrocious.

[curtis]

I went from a Pioneer 563 to a Denon 2900.

While their is a difference in sound, it is not night and day.

I think you would benefit much more by getting the 563 and putting what you have left into a good sub.

[bikeman]

I definitely want to keep my budget under $500, the lower it is the more I'll have left to put into a decent sub, my current JBL e150 is atrocious.

One thing to keep in mind. DAC's are a muture technology. There are no miracles in mature technologies. The low end is very competitive with the highest end. I have read the debates on rec.audio.tech and auditioned different players. There are definite differences between players. How these differneces translate into actual acoustic differences is a matter of debate. Right now, I don't hear much difference between any of the players I've heard and that includes one that sell for $50.
We can continue this discussion if anyone is interested.

David

[JohnnyCasaba]

Eddie,

Don't you have a Sony 222ES? Is there something you don't like about it? I heard it is a good CDP, some say it can sound analytical. You might want to look at the Cambridge Azur line too. The 640c, 540c, and the 540d. The 540d is a dvd player, but some say it is better than the 540c and you get DVD-Audio too. For the record, I have not heard any of these myself and of the ones you mentioned, only the 2900 was in my home for a demo. I use a Toshiba 3950 DVD player hooked up digitally to my AVR, no 2 channel only setup.

[Eddie]

bikeman,

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

The only high end CD player I've ever heard was the Audio Reference that Quinn has, it DID sound better than his Sony 400 Cd changer, but not 500% better like it cost...more like maybe 30% better.

My local Marantz dealer has agreed to let me bring in my Sony ES changer to do an A/B comparison with his NAD and Marantz CDPs, I'm eager to take him up on that.

[devwild]

I own the Onix XCD-88 (which is a clone of similar shanling/music hall players aside from the op amps Onix chose). It is an excelent CD player for the price, and in addition is relatively easy to modify aftermarket to improve it further, allowing it to compete with many high end decks in sound/dac quality. Onix is considering offering some of those modifications too, meaning you could send it in and not void your warranty (or learn how to solder). For excelent price now, and future possibilities, it's hard to go wrong.

It should be noted that I use this player for my headphone rig (dedicated headphone amp and mid-high end headphones), not usually with my ascends, since for my ascends I use digital sources to my receiver, making the difference in sound miniscule at best. For digital use I can't hear a difference on my ascends between the Onix and my PS2. For analog (line out) use I can say the Onix was a huge step up from $100 cd players, the difference in detail and control actually shocked me, and the sound signature is more balanced than most. The difference going up to higher end decks I have heard is significantly less.

Edit: The Ascend 340s are much more forgiving than quality headphones, so you may not hear as much difference as I have, and that is part of why people's opinion differ on how much gear quality matters (such as the dac comments above - quality dacs are amazing on quality equipment). Keep all your gear in mind and avoid missing the weakest link and feeling like you wasted money.

[devwild]

One additional comment regarding DAC quality and its consideration in buying a cd player - assuming a quality chip is used (many walmart specials and most stock computer sound cards use crappy cheap dac chips), the biggest difference isn't the dac itself, but the quality of the circuit design and components around it, such as the caps, resistors, and op amps in the output stage. There's also some arguement about the clock signal generator for the dac the though I won't get into that debate here, and I don't know enough to argue that detail anyway. These are, however, audible circuit differences similar to differences in buying a better quality amp/receiver.

[Eddie Horton]

I have the Pio 578A. For the money, it's a great player. Add in the fact that it also plays DVD's, SACD's, and DVD-A's, and it's even better. You mentioned wanting to save on a CD player to get a better sub, and I think that's the right idea.

[Lou-the-dog]

I've got the Onix XCD88 also. IMHO it is a well built player and decodes HDCD.
I have A/B'd the dacs to my Denon 3803 reciever and I can't tell the difference. For $299 it is hard to beat for a CD only player.

Randy

[Kurt C.]

I'm going to back Dave/Bikeman on this one.

I used to think that I could hear differences between decent quality CD/DVD players and really expensive ones, but I don't think so anymore.

When you do an A/B comparison, take along a sound level meter and make sure that the volume levels are EXACTLY matched on the two players.

I went into such a test being sure that I'd have no trouble picking out the more expensive player. When poker faced friend did the switching between the two players (rather than a 'helpful' salesman), I was somewhat embarrassed to discover that there was no noticible difference.

The best way to spend your money is on good quality recordings and great speakers.

[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/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=Tosh_3960&Category_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? :confused:

[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! :D

[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! :D

[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? :confused:
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/showthread.php?p=11362#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. :cool:

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.

[Kurt C.]

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! :D

Money spent on quality speakers and subs is money well spent.

Consider this: the minimum amount of distortion that a person can detect is somewhere between 0.1 and 1%. The distortion of almost any entry level player (from a reputable company) plus the distortion of the AV receiver will be far less than 0.1%. However, many speakers and subwoofers, when pushed to their limits in the lower frequencies, introduce distortions of as much as 10%!

That's more than 100X the distortion introduced by all other components combined.

If there were a penny and a dollar on the sidewalk, which one would a smart person pick up first?

[Quinn]

I find the real differences are in PRaT. PRaT= pace, rhythm, and timing. Which aren't necessarily the product of the DACs. I think Eddie is embarking on this after hearing the PRaT differences between the Mega changer and my Audio Refinement CDP. These aren't huge differences but they are audible.

Eddie is supposed to drop my Avia disc off today. Maybe we will have time to play with my Pioneer 563A, Sony Mega Changer, and the Audio Refinement. I hear differences in all three.

[metalaaron]

no question - get a better performing sub. the performance increase of the sub far outweighs the performance increase of another transport. i think your current setup will benefit the most from a hsu sub. consider changing your player further down the road. (maybe wait for this hd-dvd/blu-ray thing to shake out)

the sub would be an improvement where another transport would be more of a fine tuning. i think it's time to trade in the Yugo and get the B&W. ;)

[Kurt C.]

I find the real differences in PRaT. PRaT= pace, rhythm, and timing. Which aren't necessarily the product of the DACs. I think Eddie is embarking on this after hearing the PRaT differences between the Mega changer and my Audio Refinement CDP.

Eddie is supposed to drop my Avia disc off today. Maybe we will have time to play with my Pioneer 563A, Sony Mega Changer, and the Audio Refinement. I hear differences in all three.

I'm sure that you believe that you do hear differences. I thought so too until about a week ago.

Do you have an SPL meter? If so, try this: when Eddie comes by today switch between your best and worst player as many times as you like to familiarize yourself with the distinctive 'sound' of each. Then blindfold yourself, let him switch to an unknown player (or keep the same player as in the previous trial), match volume levels EXACTLY and you tell him which player you think it is. He'll write down the actual player and your answer without telling you whether you were right or wrong. Do this at least 15 times. Make sure you don't cheat by learning to identify the distinctive sound of opening/closing mechanisms etc. Could you guess which one you were hearing more than 66% of the time?

I was shocked to find out that I couldn't and neither could the 'expert' owner of the shop. Why not?

Let's remind ourselves of the basics: Assuming there isn't anything drastically wrong with any of the players, the only thing that goes to the DAC is 1s and 0s. The ones and zeros specify not only the frequency of each and every sound that is encoded on the CD, but also their duration (PRaT) and volume level relative to one another.

It is true that early DACs had issues with something generally referred to as 'clock jitter' which may have resulted in VERY slight timing issues, but according to qualified electrical engineers, those problems were largely resolved >10 years ago. (This is a fact that those who profit from the advertising of companies that sell 20K DACs would rather we didn't know).

[JohnnyCasaba]

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/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=Tosh_3960&Category_Code=MODS

OK, my bad on the CDP, I am not familiar with that model. I never had the 2900 and 3950 at the same time to compare. I mainly bought the 3950 to replace a DVD changer because it was cheap ($60.00) and very thin so it could fit in my space challenged setup. And since I use a digital connection to my AVR, was not concerned about the analog outs SQ.

I did compare the 2900 to my NAD T752 AVR when I had it for a demo. I thought I could hear a difference, but it was only with careful listening and A/B ing the two. I thought the 2900 was little more rolled off with the highs than the NAD, but I also thought the 2900 had a blacker background so to speak.

[Eddie]

Kurt,

hmm, you are very persuasive indeed...and very rigorous blind-testing methodology too! This is OT, but I wonder how different amps and receivers would fare using the same methodology however...

Anyways, Quinn has loaned me his Pioneer 563 so I'll A/B it against my Sony ES tonight, and if they are very similar, will take it into the local shop to A/B against their NAD players later in the week.

Thanks for all your feedback, in any case! I'm looking at the Rocket UFW-10 because it's supposed to be best for music, maybe the STF-2 or 3 as well. If I can convince myself to stick with the Sony then the subwoofer purchase should happen pretty soon...I'm so disgusted with that JBL!!!

[Eddie]

Bikeman,

So if I read you correctly, you're saying that what sound differences there are between cheap and more expensive CDPs are due to factors *other* than DACs? More expensive CDPs often claim to have better transports, chassis, etc. which they claim to improve the sound quality so their sales pitch is not based solely on having allegedly bette DACs...

Would you say then that claimed differences in sound between CDPs are as dubious as claimed differences in sound produced by higher end cables and interconnects? I've long pooh-poohed the cable/interconnect claims myself.

[Kurt C.]

Kurt,

hmm, you are very persuasive indeed...and very rigorous blind-testing methodology too! This is OT, but I wonder how different amps and receivers would fare using the same methodology however...


After my own personal discovery, I did some research on the web to figure out whether other people had had the same experience. Turns out they have. Amps have been done too. Check out the following links:

Masters on Audio/Amplifiers (http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm)


The Top 10 Lies (see number 4 in particular) (http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf)

PS-I think you'll be happy with any of the subs you mentioned.

[Eddie]

Funny, I often post Peter Aczel's article myself on other forums, even if there are parts of it I'm not so sure I agree with. The Ian Masters piece was new to me though, thanks.

However I wouldn't be as quick to accept Master's finding that a $200 receiver sounds the same as say a $1000 one...not on any scientific grounds that I know of (technically I'm very unschooled as you've probably noticed by now, lol) just on my own experience: going from a Sony minisystem to an Onkyo 601 was a HUGE leap, from the Onkyo 601 to a Marantz 5400 was a significant improvement, and from the Marantz to some NAD separates was another big leap. The last transition I can experienced recently while comparing the 170s against another Internet speaker, both of which sounded way better on the NAD than the Marantz.

[Kurt C.]

I just discovered "The Audio Critic"--it's a lot of fun.

After reading the philosophy of the website and subscribing to the 'zine, I was so impressed that I bought all of the available back issues of the print magazine. Those back issues are quite a resource--better than any 'guide to high end audio' that I've read. Granted, Aczel isn't the most tactful guy around, but it is clear that he loves music, tries to be objective, and isn't afraid to speak the truth.

I think Masters is probably right assuming that the equipment is of reasonable quality and that you don't "push" the amp/receiver/minisystem beyond its limits. (In the case of your minisystem, those limits may be hit about the same time the volume becomes audible..)

What I'm looking for now is a good way to figure out when I'm approaching the limits of my amplifier. I know that I could just keep turning it up until I hear it start clipping, but I hate to do that to my speakers...

[bikeman]

However I wouldn't be as quick to accept Master's finding that a $200 receiver sounds the same as say a $1000 one...not on any scientific grounds that I know of (technically I'm very unschooled as you've probably noticed by now, lol) just on my own experience: going from a Sony minisystem to an Onkyo 601 was a HUGE leap, from the Onkyo 601 to a Marantz 5400 was a significant improvement, and from the Marantz to some NAD separates was another big leap. The last transition I can experienced recently while comparing the 170s against another Internet speaker, both of which sounded way better on the NAD than the Marantz.

I don't question for a moment that you hear a difference. If the difference is in the hardware, there's something wrong with the hardware. That's always a possiblility expecially as these less expensive units get older.
Take two relatively new units and do a proper ABX test. If you can still tell a difference, you'll make news. If one receiver IS better then it's easily demonstated. Hearing a difference when we can identify the units is not a demonstration.
The literature is pretty good on this point. Once we have a piece of information, we can't disregard it. CAT scans are becoming a vital tool in this area. You have to eliminate the information to have a valid test. You don't need a CAT scan to get good data. A well done blind or double blind test works just as well in this area.
Again, there's no argument here that there is a difference. It's where the difference is traceable to. Fun stuff.

David

[bikeman]

Bikeman,
So if I read you correctly, you're saying that what sound differences there are between cheap and more expensive CDPs are due to factors *other* than DACs? More expensive CDPs often claim to have better transports, chassis, etc. which they claim to improve the sound quality so their sales pitch is not based solely on having allegedly bette DACs...
Would you say then that claimed differences in sound between CDPs are as dubious as claimed differences in sound produced by higher end cables and interconnects? I've long pooh-poohed the cable/interconnect claims myself.

You can improve the integrity of a CD player. That will make it last longer. If someone can make it sound better, they have publishable material. The marketing dept does not constitute publishing. ;)
We know how to do proper testing. There's a few reasons that it dosen't happen. Expense and outcome being the two most common. But those two can be related. Why go through the expense if the outcome is in serious doubt?

David

[Eddie]

Kurt and Bikeman,

you guys might want to look into this (humongous) thread on another forum, particularly the counterarguments against Peter Aczel by one Jan Vigne:

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/135998.html

It's a lot of reading but IMO might be worth your while.

[Eddie]

BTW here's an interesting take on blind testing:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/

[bikeman]

you guys might want to look into this (humongous) thread on another forum, particularly the counterarguments against Peter Aczel by one Jan Vigne:
http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/135998.html


Thanks, Eddie. I followed that thread earlier this year. If there's anything in there that directly addresses my hypothesis, I missed it. Feel free to point it out. Peter and Jan are not central to my position and I haven't mention either in this discussion.

David

[bikeman]

BTW here's an interesting take on blind testing:
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/

If you'd like to find out about the scientific method for blind/double blind testing, you'll need to search the scientific literature. Stereophile is a long, long way from science.

David

[pegleg]

I have the Pio 578A. For the money, it's a great player. Add in the fact that it also plays DVD's, SACD's, and DVD-A's, and it's even better. You mentioned wanting to save on a CD player to get a better sub, and I think that's the right idea.

Eddie,
Do you know if that player works in a stereo system? One review I saw said it needs a 5.1 system.
Since I am tech-NO-literate on some things, perhaps all DVD players work in stereo systems?
Thanks,

Pegleg

[T2T]

OK, I've been reading this forum off-and-on. However, seeing this thread led me to register so I could respond accordingly.

A little background: I've owned the Pioneer 578 and currently own the Onix XCD-88 player.

I had the Pioneer for about 2 months before selling it off. The redbook audio playback, using the on-board DACs left me quite unimpressed. In fact, I also have a $29 Magnavox that actually sounded better when it came to redbook audio. Finally, after some deliberation, I moved onto the Onix XCD-88. Hands down, it sounds the best - well, at least to me it does. It is well worth the price of $299 plus a small shipping fee. The Onix player is built like a tank, while the Pioneer player seems like a lightweight toy.

I also noticed H/K was on your list. I'm not familiar with that particular player. But, I've read where some H/K players do feature Wolfson DACs.

Best of luck with your purchase.

[Eddie]

bikeman,

to be honest I often get lost in Jan's postings, he can be very esoteric and long-winded. I think I only lasted for about the first 150 posts or so. :p

[Eddie]

T2T,

thanks for your feedback. Could you go into more detail about what exactly about the Pioneer 578's cd playback that was far inferior to the XCD-88's?

Hell I just might have to check out that little Magnavox you're talking about. $29, hmm sounds like a Walmart deal...they have an awesome return policy!

[Kurt C.]

I am considering the NAD c542, Onix X88cd, and Pioneer 578 (decreasing order of pricing), running 340s off of some vintage NAD separates.

Eddie et al,

I want to make sure that we are actually addressing your questions and not getting lost here. I assume that your vintage NAD preamp does NOT have digital or multichannel in capability?

That means that you will be using two channel (L/R) analog output from the CD player at home (and for all your comparions) and have no use for multichannel outputs like DTS, dolby digital, DVD-A or SACD?

[Mag_Neato]

I have an older Yamaha CDC-715 5-disc changer from 1992. I don't use it very often as the drawer has recently started to stick, and requires a tug to get it to open and a push to fully close. Plus there is no digital output, so it is strictly analog.

I usually use my Pioneer 563A DVD/CD/SACD/DVD-A/MP-3 player running through it's digital out(coax) into my Outlaw 1050. I have the CD input on the 1050 set to the same digital input as the DVD input, but set to 2-channel instead of surround so I don't need to change any settings.

[Kurt C.]

Kurt and Bikeman,

you guys might want to look into this (humongous) thread on another forum, particularly the counterarguments against Peter Aczel by one Jan Vigne:

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/135998.html

It's a lot of reading but IMO might be worth your while.

OK. I read it. After reading the first post, it became clear to me that Jan Vigne is a well spoken person who can put together a rather eloquent defense of his beliefs. I went ahead and carefully read the rest of the thread to make sure that I had not misjudged him.

Jan does write nice, flowery sounding arguments, but they're wrong.

Jan's opinions are not based on facts. He ignores REAL facts, as stated by honest, qualified electrical engineers who design audio equipment. Instead, Jan prefers to use his excellent writing skills to support myths. These myths originate from two groups of people--idiots who, like Jan, base their beliefs on hearsay and mysticism; and liars who know the truth but stand to make a lot of money if they can convince you that the myths are true.

[Quinn]

Kurt you sound like me about two years ago before I went to an audio gathering and heard the differences when I had no vested interest in hearing it.

Have you ever done the blind listening yourself?

[Eddie]

Kurt,

thanks for asking; no my NAD separates are strictly 2-channel and unfortunately no bass management either.

I have a separate cheapo Panasonic DVD player I use for movies that has a digital coax to the Marantz receiver.

DVD-A and SACD-A I like the idea of but have no interest in forking out $20-30 a pop for, plus I usually only hook up the surrounds only when I watch movies like LOTR which is once in a blue moon (room layout and WAF issues).

I'm looking at the Pioneer 563/578 only because I've read from some people that it has particularly good CD playback in its price range.

As for Jan Vigne, I'm impressed that you made it through that entire huge thread at one go. I'm getting the impression that the audio world seems divided straight down the middle, one camp being more or less "mystics" and the other being "empiricists."

Hoping to do the CDP abx-ing today, will get back with my findings...

[bikeman]

As for Jan Vigne, I'm impressed that you made it through that entire huge thread at one go. I'm getting the impression that the audio world seems divided straight down the middle, one camp being more or less "mystics" and the other being "empiricists."


This is why the new research in fields that don't even know that audiophiles exist is so interesting. It has the potential to give the two camps some common ground. If any of you are familiar with Douglas Adam's "Babble Fish," common ground dosen't always lead to a better understanding. ;) That's why I use "potential."
And Kurt, don't sugar coat your thoughts so much. Let us know how you really feel. :D

David
A fellow sugar coater

[Kurt C.]

I used to think that I could hear differences between decent quality CD/DVD players and really expensive ones, but I don't think so anymore.

When you do an A/B comparison, take along a sound level meter and make sure that the volume levels are EXACTLY matched on the two players.

I went into such a test being sure that I'd have no trouble picking out the more expensive player. When poker faced friend did the switching between the two players (rather than a 'helpful' salesman), I was somewhat embarrassed to discover that there was no noticible difference.
Quinn,

I have done such a test (with myself as a listener) on several occasions. The first time, I thought I could hear differences, but there was a critical flaw in the test, we didn't take the time to make sure that the volume levels were EXACTLY matched to ±0.1 dB. The human brain does funny things with extremely small differences in volume level. When one of two otherwise identical sounds is slightly louder than the other, we are more likely to think it sounds "better" rather than louder.

Did you test you participated in meet the following standards: 1) EXACT level matching to ±0.1 dB, 2)no hints as to which player you were listening to, 3) at least 14 guesses as to the better sounding of an unidentified player?

If any of the above standards were violated or you couldn't guess correctly greater than 66% of the time, the test wasn't valid and you were bound to think you heard differences.

I know that it is annoyingly difficult to do these kinds of tests correctly, but since we are talking about lots of money and even more potential satisfaction. People who, like you and me really care about the truth, owe it to ourselves to make sure that the comparison is done without bias.

[Quinn]

Nope. I just going to continue to enjoy my system as is with the "improvements I hear" without over thinking it all.

[BradJudy]

For what it's worth, I didn't hear a noticable difference between the XCD-88 and my Pioneer 563. I did, however, notice a difference between either and my AA DDE 3.0 DAC. Minor, but noticable. No, it wasn't a double-blind test (although I tried to adjust for levels) as I don't have a setup suitable for a double-blind (primarily a way to trim individual input levels to match).

If a non super scientific comparison is sufficient for an individual to make a decision on that amount of money, why nag them about it? I would spend more on a car than on audio, but still don't feel the need to be blindfolded while riding in different ones to make the desicion, nor do I buy one totally based on the specs (although they certainly play a major role, especially reliablility and safety records). Everyone has a balance that they choose to use between emperical and non-emperical factors when making a decision. As long as they are comfortable with the balance they chose to use, what's wrong with that?

[bikeman]

what's wrong with that?

Give me a minute...I'm thinking. OK. I know "what's wrong with that." Sometimes it dosen't agree with my predjudices. Any other questions? ;)

David

[Kurt C.]

Everyone has a balance that they choose to use between emperical and non-emperical factors when making a decision. As long as they are comfortable with the balance they chose to use, what's wrong with that?

There's clearly nothing wrong with making decisions based on a combination of "head" and "heart".

But...Eddie originally asked for informed opinions on whether the most noticible improvement in the sound quality of his system would come from buying a decent CDP + better subwoofer or just buying a really good CD player.

The rest of this discussion can be boiled down to David and I insisting on a fair evaluation of different CD players. To legitimize a claim that one sounds better than another, one has to do a fair, double bind comparison.

It would be silly for us claim that one car accelerates faster than another if they both do 0-60 in exactly 5.0 seconds, wouldn't it?

[BradJudy]

But...Eddie originally asked for informed opinions on whether the most noticible improvement in the sound quality of his system would come from buying a decent CDP + better subwoofer or just buying a really good CD player.


True and I would tend to lean towards putting all $500 into the sub and picking up something like a Hsu STF/VTF-2 or SVS PB10-ISD. If you have a bad sub, in my experience this would be a far better use of your money than a new CD player (assuming your player is functioning fine).

[Eddie]

A. Shop's system:

NAD c372 integrated amp, Monitor Reference towers, some very expensive-looking flat fiber-optic-looking cables.

B. Contestants:

1. Sony CA7-ES carousel
2. Pioneer 563 universal player
3. Marantz 4300 carousel
4. NAD c542

C. Audition CD:

I brought five or six, but ended up mostly using the Norah Jones "Come Away With Me" CD because the shop had a copy too.

D. General impressions:

Well I have to give it to the CDP-Skeptics: differences DO exist, but for me were quite subtle for the most part. Certainly not anywhere as night-and-day as there can be with speakers and amps.

E. Specific impressions:

The Pioneer certainly had the harshest sound to my ears...Norah's voice became shrill and flat, quite unpleasant. Quick elimination.

The biggest surprise: my Sony ES was very very close to the NAD c542 in sound quality! After replaying the same 10 seconds of one of the songs on both machines, I did notice that the NAD had a slight edge in midrange smoothness and longer decay but they were neck and neck in every other respect.

The dark horse CDP: the Marantz 4300 had a very interesting and distinct sound---crisp, kinetic (as in snap crackle pop), and nice punchy bass notes. I noticed that its volume level was noticeably lower than the others for some reason; I always had to increase the amp's volume whenever I switched back to it from another CDP.

Of all of the CDPs I discovered that the Sony was the easiest to skip forwards and backwards within the same track. Ease of use and features were also superior.

Right now though I am finding that the NAD's slight improvement in midrange smoothness and the Marantz's punchy bass and very interesting delivery not quite enough to override my need to upgrade the subwoofer.

It is possible though that I should've brought more duplicate CDs of different musical genres, instead of basing my findings on just one CD. What do you guys think?

Also the shop guy recommended a different technique on auditioning than mine, which I tried for about 10 minutes before going back to mine.

My technique: isolate and analyze. I choose particular passages of individual songs (usually 10-20 seconds) and play them over and over again on different CDPs in quick succession at fairly high volumes (80db or so) and listen closely...often these are passages with sudden reversals, crescendos, etc.

His technique: globally listen. He recommended listening to several songs on one CDP to sort of "get the feel" fo it and arrive at whatever emotional state the musical presentation brings out, then listen to those songs again on a different CDP, again going with your gut reaction to the music. Supposedly your unconscious mind knows the difference, and you just have to give it a chance to do its work by stepping away from too much conscious analysis, kind of like how sometimes you go to bed thinking about some problem and when you wake up in the morning you have a Eureka moment as the answer pops up out of nowhere.

Very Zen-like, really, which I should like since I have been doing Zen meditation for the last couple of years---but to me it allows in far too many variables and also my knowledge that humans have an aural memory of about 3 seconds doesn't inspire much confidence.

Also ironic, because in my own personal life and philsophical orientation, I have very much of a mystical perspective but with audio I tend to lean the other direction.

[bikeman]

Very Zen-like, really, which I should like since I have been doing Zen meditation for the last couple of years---but to me it allows in far too many variables and also my knowledge that humans have an aural memory of about 3 seconds doesn't inspire much confidence.
Also ironic, because in my own personal life and philsophical orientation, I have very much of a mystical perspective but with audio I tend to lean the other direction.

There are so many variables that adding a few more isn't going to matter. I like the shop guys approach much better and given your own philosophy you might be more comfortable with that approach in the long run.
I tend to draw conclusions on speakers rather quickly but all the other components take days or usually weeks before I can say what works for me and what dosen't. For me, first impressions aren't usually a good indicator of long term happiness. I gotta live with something awhile before I make judgements.
Whatever makes it all enjoyable is a good approach in the end.

David

[Kurt C.]

the Marantz 4300 (stuff deleted) I noticed that its volume level was noticeably lower than the others for some reason; I always had to increase the amp's volume whenever I switched back to it from another CDP.
(more stuff deleted)
at fairly high volumes (80db or so) and listen closely...often these are passages with sudden reversals, crescendos, etc.


Eddie,

Excuse me if this is a bit of a harsh reminder, I'm not trying to kill your fun but since we've all put a fair amount of time and energy into this thread...

Please, If you are trying to make a useful comparison of two CDPs, at minimum you MUST match volume levels with an SPL meter!

You have to match volume levels regardless of whether you do quick back and forth comparisons, or take the Zen approach. If you don't, the only thing you'll learn is how those Monitor Reference towers sound at slightly different volume levels.

Preferably, you'll want match levels to ±0.1 dB but at least match to within 0.5 dB or better (which you can easily do with a $25 Radioshack analog SPL meter).

P.S.--Despite my defense of a more scientificially rigorous method, I also do happen to like the "Zen Approach" for final equipment decisions. I believe that music affects us on both conscious and subconscious levels and am open to the idea that extremely small variations might be found through this approach that won't show up with ABX testing. However, I would still want to be sure that I'm not subcousciously responding to variables, like volume differences, that can be easily eliminated. :p

[Quinn]

I agree the 563A presentation is pretty dry and analytical. No warmth.

[Eddie]

David,

yeah I might ask for a home demo, he might let me take the floor model for a few days. I don't want to give up on the c542 so quickly after reading so much good press about it.

But the differences so far really are quite subtle, with the exception of the Pioneer.

[Eddie]

Kurt,

actually I do have an SPL meter, just forgot to bring it in yesterday.

> I believe that music affects us on both conscious and subconscious levels

Well that's just it---what we call the "subconscious level" is particularly prone to autosuggestion and the placebo effect, which worries me.