[RRod]

  Can you use a CD mat with a Cyrus player?  If not, it is supremely lacking in sound quality.

 
OMG please don't 

  Need my summon analog Magic® card.

 

[rsaavedra]

That can't be enphasized strongly enough.
  Quote:

most areas of audio are mature technology.

 

[Audioholic123]

 

Exactly...technology cant be emphasized enough...

 

[Roly1650]

Exactly...technology cant be emphasized enough...

That's a complete distortion of what's been said.
Truth is audio electronics in general and cd players in particular ceased to be anything other than commodities back in the last century and that's the point.

 

[nick_charles]

   
See the link below:
 
 
What does this mean? well multi thousand dollar audio equipment will have only the finest quality components incorporated on the circuit board inside, compared to lower quality components incorporated in much cheaper equipment. 

 
That is not necessarily so. There are plenty of expensive boutique items which have cheap components inside or are simply rebadged versions of budget items, and a cheap component that meets a given spec is no worse than an expensive component that meets the same spec, but even if your contention were true, which it isn't , then it would still depend on the components regardless of price being placed in a competent design that exploits them correctly, how would we know that the design/components combination was competent - easy we can objectively quantify the output quality through a series of standard tests none of which give a toss about the cost of the item under test . I suggest you have a trawl through the Stereophile Reviews Measurement pages, it's a great laugh, you will find many examples of outrageously expensive audio kit that are just out and out awful (Some quotes from JA on different expensive kit "truly dreadful", 'worst-measuring digital component I have encountered", "in many respects ...worst-measuring digital product I have encountered", "very disappointing measured performance")for instance the Zanden combo, McIntosh Music Server, most tube amps and so on. You'll find no significant correlation between cost and measured quality on any objective criteria...The same mag reviewed a $299 streamer and JA concluded in the measurements section "excellent audio engineering with no sign that it has been compromised to reach its low price"

 

[icebear]

.... The above links and graph are evidence that circuit board components vary in quality. What does this mean? well multi thousand dollar audio equipment will have only the finest quality components incorporated on the circuit board inside, compared to lower quality components incorporated in much cheaper equipment. What flows through the circuit board?  the all important current that ultimately turns into the music we hear through connected speakers/headphones. So isn't it important that we take these things into account before assuming that there is no difference in sound quality between an expensive audio device compared to a cheaper one? isn't it important that you don't label someone delusional if you obviously don't understand what they are saying in the first place.
 
Point proved!

 
LOL ! Delving deep into isolated details ...
You have only proven that you don't really get the big picture.

 
Quality of certain parts of ANY design have a range in which the overall design works. It depends on how the design has been carried out. A so called relaxed design works perfectly within the intended target using relatively wide spec. parts. Other designs are super edge tolerance designs and every part must be top notch otherwise the entire thing is off target. Example are certain lenses of Leica vs designs of Zeiss. Usually Zeiss uses more lens elements but is OK with each within a certain range. Leica pushing the technical edge with e.g. aspherical surfaces and fewer elements but each must be within very tight tolerances as well as the assembly process and testing. Lenses of both companies deliver great optical performance. Zeiss is roughly about 1/3 of the Leica price for same f-stop and focal length.
 
A bad chef can mess up a meal from very expensive ingredients.
A really good chef can prepare a delicious meal from cheap ingredients.
 
You do the analogy for audio circuits yourself

 

 

[Ruben123]

The Marantz has in fact marginally superior SNR,  Channel separation and THD to the Cyrus CD player. Marantz have been making affordable high quality CD players for a long time, not that there is anything wrong with the Mission/Cyrus stuff ...

But are the differences audible is another thing. Why is this thread not yet blocked as this is obviously a troll.

 

[arnyk]

 
Exactly...technology cant be emphasized enough...

 
Yes it can. Good example are the people who say that more expensive parts always lead to better sound quality.

 

[arnyk]

But are the differences audible is another thing. Why is this thread not yet blocked as this is obviously a troll.

 
Good example. One can easily build a CD player that has > 93 dB SNR, but that's the SNR limit of a properly-dithered CD no matter where you play it.

 

[Ruben123]

Good example. One can easily build a CD player that has > 93 dB SNR, but that's the SNR limit of a properly-dithered CD no matter where you play it.

What about the stereo crosstalk? I can imagine at one point there's no reason to go any further.

 

[OddE]

What about the stereo crosstalk? I can imagine at one point there's no reason to go any further.

 
-Well, I guess you could call it a day once you've achieved better than 25dB or so of channel separation. (Typical value at 1kHz for a decent cartridge playing a decently cut LP...)

 

[reginalb]

   
That's because we often are listening to something better.
 
The quality of components inside an amp dictate the quality of the sound. All electrical engineers know this (my father is one). An amp with dirt cheap components and transistors will convey the signal and that's that. However, one made of top components and transistors with the finest capacitors required to convey the signal, will ultimately output a:
                                                                                   better, more preserved, less degraded  signal.
 
Most of these blind tests are done by guys who aren't electrical engineers...This method of testing equipment is not to be trusted, since it doesn't take other elements into account.
 
 
People seem to want to dis-believe the notion of higher price for better sound, but it is reality...
You have to pay more for a better car, pay more for a better house and so on...

 
 
The quality of most internals demonstrably don't make a difference (past a point) that is audible to human ears (which really aren't all that good). Repeatedly throughout this article, you make some interesting quotes that betray a complete lack of understanding the topic at hand. Still, in this post, you make my favorite odd audiophile argument, that somehow blind testing is bad. Surely you must understand that a blind test removes biases that are present in sighted tests? 
 
Most of the things you say are just a lack of understanding, or taking the time to read all of the literature. It was a mistake that I made for a long time, before I bought a switch that allowed me to start doing my own blind testing. My eyes were opened. Although I still did settle for a pretty expensive MP3 player (Sony ZX1) that was because of it's low impedance to match my favorite IEMs, and a really nice sounding (to me) automatic EQ. Sometimes expensive equipment can be good, to a point. 
 
That said, I think the reason that audiophiles often read all the research in the world and still won't believe it, is the odd hostility towards blind testing. As someone with a bit of research in my background, I always trusted blind testing, and that's probably why I was pushed away from my audiophilic tendencies. I was always skeptical towards some claims. Mainly about interconnects, I laughed out loud when I read the results of the hanger test. 
 
Anyhow, you say that blind testing is not to be trusted, because they don't take other elements in to account. Can you point to some specifics? Intervening variables can influence research, but when it comes to audiophile claims, there is a clear pattern to the results of testing, and I have had read several studies with very sound methodology, but if you'd like to enlighten us, feel free. I am open to it, but thus far you've only parroted unsubstantiated claims. Unfortunately, that's what you usually get in this forum, unsubstantiated claims thrown about (from both sides, honestly - although I've read the post histories of enough skeptics here that I know are just tired of throwing up the same data over and over again and having their shouts fall on deaf ears).
 
Alright, my post to you is wandering, but I circle back, show a study or two whose methodology you have a problem with - I am honestly interested in seeing it (or them). 
 

  I've long held beliefs that are stated in this article (e.g. inconsequential effects of interconnects) however their statements about amplifiers is patently untrue. How can I trust the rest of their points when the statement "all amplifiers sound the same" is so clearly false?

 
Note this carefully worded quote: 
 

“Any amplifier, regardless of topology, can be treated as a ‘black box’ for the purpose of listening comparisons. If amplifiers A and B both have flat frequency response, low noise floor, reasonably low distortion, high input impedance, low output impedance, and are not clipped, they will be indistinguishable in sound at matched levels no matter what’s inside them.” 

 
That's a whole lot of givens:
1. Both have a flat frequency response
2. Low noise floor
3. Reasonably low distortion
4. High input impedance
5. Low output impedance
6. Not clipped
7. Level matched
 
As has been mentioned, a lot of the tech discussed herein is mature, and that includes solid state amplifiers. But I've long held the belief that amps today fall in to two categories 
1. Audibly transparent
2. Terrible
 
People that make the claim that all amps sound the same clearly haven't ever heard one of the few really bad amps out there. I have - when I first installed subwoofers in my Jeep back when I was in high school (c. 2001) I first hooked up a pair of Blaupunkt subs to a Viper amp. It was a new entry in to the amplifier market, I was a dumbass, and it was really shiny. So I plunked down my hard earned cash on the thing, and lord was it bad. I mean, just unbelievably terrible. The level of distortion was completely unreal. (Note: assumption 3 above). I had to argue with the manager of the store to take it back (same day as purchase). I got a Rockford amp in its place, and it was fine.
 
Since then, I've never heard a truly bad amplifier, I've had 3 receivers in my home sound system, and with the little microphones to auto-tune them, a pair of Harman Kardons, then later a Pioneer Elite have all sounded the same. With amps, you have to hit a certain level of competency, and once you do, they do, in fact, sound the same (Some have more EQ options, a colored response, etc. but remember that we're assuming a certain level of sameness between then when we say they sound the same).

 

[Ruben123]

   
 
The quality of most internals demonstrably don't make a difference (past a point) that is audible to human ears (which really aren't all that good). Repeatedly throughout this article, you make some interesting quotes that betray a complete lack of understanding the topic at hand. Still, in this post, you make my favorite odd audiophile argument, that somehow blind testing is bad. Surely you must understand that a blind test removes biases that are present in sighted tests? 
 
Most of the things you say are just a lack of understanding, or taking the time to read all of the literature. It was a mistake that I made for a long time, before I bought a switch that allowed me to start doing my own blind testing. My eyes were opened. Although I still did settle for a pretty expensive MP3 player (Sony ZX1) that was because of it's low impedance to match my favorite IEMs, and a really nice sounding (to me) automatic EQ. Sometimes expensive equipment can be good, to a point. 
 
That said, I think the reason that audiophiles often read all the research in the world and still won't believe it, is the odd hostility towards blind testing. As someone with a bit of research in my background, I always trusted blind testing, and that's probably why I was pushed away from my audiophilic tendencies. I was always skeptical towards some claims. Mainly about interconnects, I laughed out loud when I read the results of the hanger test. 
 
Anyhow, you say that blind testing is not to be trusted, because they don't take other elements in to account. Can you point to some specifics? Intervening variables can influence research, but when it comes to audiophile claims, there is a clear pattern to the results of testing, and I have had read several studies with very sound methodology, but if you'd like to enlighten us, feel free. I am open to it, but thus far you've only parroted unsubstantiated claims. Unfortunately, that's what you usually get in this forum, unsubstantiated claims thrown about (from both sides, honestly - although I've read the post histories of enough skeptics here that I know are just tired of throwing up the same data over and over again and having their shouts fall on deaf ears).
 
Alright, my post to you is wandering, but I circle back, show a study or two whose methodology you have a problem with - I am honestly interested in seeing it (or them). 
 
 
Note this carefully worded quote: 
 
 
That's a whole lot of givens:
1. Both have a flat frequency response
2. Low noise floor
3. Reasonably low distortion
4. High input impedance
5. Low output impedance
6. Not clipped
7. Level matched
 
As has been mentioned, a lot of the tech discussed herein is mature, and that includes solid state amplifiers. But I've long held the belief that amps today fall in to two categories 
1. Audibly transparent
2. Terrible
 
People that make the claim that all amps sound the same clearly haven't ever heard one of the few really bad amps out there. I have - when I first installed subwoofers in my Jeep back when I was in high school (c. 2001) I first hooked up a pair of Blaupunkt subs to a Viper amp. It was a new entry in to the amplifier market, I was a dumbass, and it was really shiny. So I plunked down my hard earned cash on the thing, and lord was it bad. I mean, just unbelievably terrible. The level of distortion was completely unreal. (Note: assumption 3 above). I had to argue with the manager of the store to take it back (same day as purchase). I got a Rockford amp in its place, and it was fine.
 
Since then, I've never heard a truly bad amplifier, I've had 3 receivers in my home sound system, and with the little microphones to auto-tune them, a pair of Harman Kardons, then later a Pioneer Elite have all sounded the same. With amps, you have to hit a certain level of competency, and once you do, they do, in fact, sound the same (Some have more EQ options, a colored response, etc. but remember that we're assuming a certain level of sameness between then when we say they sound the same).

I like the famous test where a group of audiophiles failed to blindly distinguish a Behringer amp ($30 or so) and a state of the art audiophile amp ($2000 or something). That opened my eyes some time ago.

 

[arnyk]

 
Technical specifications are exactly what they are. See if you can triangulate the details, they will point you towards proof of what i've been trying to tell everyone...

 
 
Saying that they are what they are is a truism, and therefore conveys no useful insights.
 
Resorting to this kind of double talk is no more help to an attempt at a rational argument then praising highly based and frequently erroneous sources such as Steve Guttenberg.

 

[arnyk]

 
I like the famous test where a group of audiophiles failed to blindly distinguish a Behringer amp ($30 or so) and a state of the art audiophile amp ($2000 or something). That opened my eyes some time ago.

 
 
I think that you may be referring to:
 
http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
 
which is actually a somewhat different test that makes the same point.
 
It should also be pointed out that the Behringer A500 does have some potentially audible failings that can be ferrited out  in a listening test if you try to exploit them.