[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by That dude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I used the word generic because generally, from what I've experienced and from what I've heard/read, the main "complaint" with the NAD sound is that it's too middle of the road. It's bassy but not boomy, it's clean but not ultra detailed [I.E. jack of all trades, generally what is considered to be good sound]

What you are describing is a player with a flat frequency response. That is exactly what you should be looking for in a player. Coloration should be added with tone controls or EQ. It shouldn't be hard wired into the player.

See ya
Steve

 

[Champ04]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif What you are describing is a player with a flat frequency response. That is exactly what you should be looking for in a player. Coloration should be added with tone controls or EQ. It shouldn't be hard wired into the player.

Am I to gather from this statement that you believe the only difference between cdp is the frequency response??

Good grief. Compare the specs sometimes. They are ALL basically ruler flat. Certainly far flatter than speaker (or headphone) response. And well beyond in room response for speakers.

If thats all people think are making a difference in sound then its no wonder they cant hear the difference between a $100 cdp (yuck) and a good analoge scource.

No offense, but sheesh.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champ04 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Am I to gather from this statement that you believe the only difference between cdp is the frequency response??

My take on this is that a flat FR is an absolute minimum requirement for a CD player, it should deliver what it is given no more , no less. If it is a crap recoridng you should hear a crap recording, if it is a good recording the CD player should not get in the way. But some schools of thought focus on a CD player having a particular sound and applying bodges to achieve this. Then it becomes purely a matter of preference.


Quote:

Good grief. Compare the specs sometimes. They are ALL basically ruler flat. Certainly far flatter than speaker (or headphone) response. And well beyond in room response for speakers.

Mostly true, but tubed CD players and Wadias frequently diverge from this model. The last Wadia reviewed by Stereophile for instance had a 3db roll off to 20K, giving it a particular sound often deemed pleasing, see above.

But here is the rub. If on the whole all CD players measure much the same, why should they sound different ? If all the information on the disc is recovered accurately and converted to a continuous signal accurately and given suitable boost by the analog stages, somethings any jelly bean opamp can do, where do the differences creep in ?

A few years back a bunch of chaps in Spain did a blind test between a $12,000 Oracle CD player and a $200 Pioneer DVD player. Nobody could tell them apart.

Sadly such empirical tests are few and far between. I am not saying that all CD players sound the same, but some certainly do...

 

[Champ04]

Okay, I'm seeing the point. I think.

But even with your example of the Wadia, the 3dB roll off has nothing to do with the perceived sound that people expect from Wadia. Some people describe their sound as "rolled off" (duh) but I usually reject those statements. A 3dB rolloff of only the highest harmonics within the perceptable range is not going to be noticable in my book. Unless it is mated with other gear that also does this, thus multiplying the effect. Be that as it may, their sound is a result of the filtering mechanism they use.
Also, with regards to bench tests of cd players. The standard tests used are far from a complete set. In fact, it was Wadia that used nearly a whole different set of tests to demonstrate their design principles. I dont remember all of them off the top of my head. I know one of them did a really good job of showing ringing in the signal. I'll have to go back and look again for the rest.

I've seen those blind tests done before. I never reject the results as they state them. But I've always found at least a handful of ways that they seriously deviate from true scientific testing, especially given their intended conclusions.

 

[Navyblue]

So, are there any blind test to show that people could tell the expensive stuffs from the cheap ones?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champ04 /img/forum/go_quote.gif But even with your example of the Wadia, the 3dB roll off has nothing to do with the perceived sound that people expect from Wadia. Some people describe their sound as "rolled off" (duh) but I usually reject those statements. A 3dB rolloff of only the highest harmonics within the perceptable range is not going to be noticable in my book.

Agreed, -3db down at 20K will be extraordinary hard to detect for all but WindowsX (

) , a lost cause certainly for me and my 49 year old ears. My point was that you can engineer a particular sound viz with Wadia's filtering that you mention.

Quote:

Also, with regards to bench tests of cd players. The standard tests used are far from a complete set. In fact, it was Wadia that used nearly a whole different set of tests to demonstrate their design principles. I dont remember all of them off the top of my head. I know one of them did a really good job of showing ringing in the signal. I'll have to go back and look again for the rest.

I would be genuinely interested to read about them if you can find them.

Quote:

I've seen those blind tests done before. I never reject the results as they state them. But I've always found at least a handful of ways that they seriously deviate from true scientific testing, especially given their intended conclusions.

Almost any experiment can be improved and certainly controlling human subjects is a real nuisance. Having said that the real benefit of blind tests is the attempt to remove bias. Of course experimenters often do have an agenda, the Spanish chaps for instance are all heavy duty Vinyl lovers and I have a suspicion that they feel that all digital sounds the same anyway. It was then immensely amusing when none of them could tell the difference between vinyl and CD-R of vinyl, but I digress.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Easier to just use a computer as source at home. I use my Macbook with optical out. The iPod is just for on the road and at the office. See ya Steve

Optical out to what, Steve? I was of the impression that you didn't particularly believe in outboard DACs?

Tim

 

[Champ04]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navyblue /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, are there any blind test to show that people could tell the expensive stuffs from the cheap ones?

Yes, but they fall under the same fallability of the ones that say people cant hear the difference. I've run numerous tests on myself and a half dozen people I know. But nothing large enough to be published. Just for my own analytical curiosity.
Nick Charles is absolutely correct when he states that tests involving humans can be a nuisance. Can be downright frustrating, I say. And there is always an agenda somewhere. You just have to look for it. haha.
My opinion is that the existing tests in this area of study are a wash.

Tone Audio just released a new issue where they interview David Wilson.
www.tonepublications.com
Its an interesting read. He talks briefly about audibility of various stereo parts. Some hard line left brain types will reject his notion that there are things that we just cant measure at this time. But its still an interesting view point and worth the read.

I'll have to do some serious digging to find the old Wadia test info. Its been a good 10 years since I read any of that. But I'll look.

 

[sberger]

My 4g IMOD is not the primary source, but when I'm working around the house and just want to have some tunes flowing, I throw it on shuffle for the 2600 or so songs I have on it and it sounds great flowing through my system. Not better than my vinyl, but damn close to my Denon 3910, which is a $1500 player. I do think the IMOD has a lot to do with it. The Kimber cable is good also, and the Wolfson DAC is no slouch. So yeah, given the right set up, I think an Ipod could serve somebody quite well as a primary source.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif Optical out to what, Steve? I was of the impression that you didn't particularly believe in outboard DACs?

The Macbook doesn't have a line out, so the connection to my A/V amp is optical. That way I can resolve DTS 5:1. There's no point to an external DAC with a portable DAP unless there's something wrong with the DAC built into it.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champ04 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Am I to gather from this statement that you believe the only difference between cdp is the frequency response?

No. There are other factors... signal to noise, dynamic range, distortion, etc. But it is true that all well designed CD players have good enough specs to perform pretty much the same. But just about any speaker setup and a some headphones require equalization to achieve flat response.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Champ04 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, but they fall under the same fallability of the ones that say people cant hear the difference.

Generally, if there are significant differences, even a semi-reasonably well designed test will reveal it. It's only when the differences get down to gnat's hairs where it's harder to draw hard and fast conclusions. But with that sort of thing, it really doesn't matter anyway.

See ya
Steve

 

[Champ04]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Generally, if there are significant differences

And herein lies the rub.

The exact definition of significant is the subjective part and pretty much the foundation/source of any of these arguments.

Cheers,

 

[bigshot]

If it isn't significant, why bother worrying about it? There are plenty of really significant things to attend to. The foundation of a lot of these arguments is OCD about things that theoretically *might* be affecting the sound quality, not any actual perceivable sound.

See ya
Steve

 

[Champ04]

like I said..........