[vladvlaz]

I read a few recent threads about someone asking which CDP to buy for under $20k and whether people can really hear day and night differences between different amps/DACs.

I bought the musical fidelity CDP to use for a speaker system, but since I wouldn't have enough cash for the foreseeable future for speakers and an amp I also bought the Xcan V3 and HD650 to enjoy the music now.

I've been listening for 4 months exclusively to this setup (MF A5, Xcan and HD650 all unmodded - headphones should be burnt in by now I guess) and those threads got me wondering if after all this time I would be able to tell the difference between the cheap built-in audio card on my Dell laptop (ripped CDs to FLAC and played thru winamp) and the CDP which cost almost 2x the price of the laptop.

I played two identical tracks simultaneously on the CDP and laptop and would switch between the XCan which was connected to the CDP and the laptop soundcard, unamped.

All I can say is, hopefully, there would be a more significant difference on a speaker system. Even unamped from the soundcard, pop music sounded extremely similar. In fact so similar that I doubt that in a blind test I'd be able to tell the two sources apart. This leads me to conclude the most radical improvement in sound quality came, as several people on this site mentioned, from the headphones, with source and amp playing very inferior parts.

I then switched to classical piano music. There was more of a difference to be heard, with CDP + XCan sounding fuller, richer, with better staging and generally more pleasing. I don't know which had more responsibility for this - the CDP or the amp. But again the difference was there, altho considering the $2.5k extra spent it only accounted for about 5-10% in SQ but unlike with pop music I'd say 25% more enjoyment if it can be estimated. Would I be able to tell the difference blindfolded? I think I'd have a higher hit rate than with pop music, but certainly I would not be more than 70% of the time correct.

I'm sure I can train myself to be able to guess better - certainly bass placement varies and to a lesser degree bass response. I wrote a post some time ago asking if it's worth paying a lot for CDPs to listen to pop music on them. I'm pretty convinced that pop music sounds better on cheaper systems now (was even thinking of buying a mini system for this), and it's certainly been disappointing buying CDs to find out they sound like ***p on more revealing components.

Would this stop me from buying the most expensive speakers + amp that I can afford? At this point, no.

 

[breakfastchef]

This was an interesting post as it brings together a lot of questions routinely addressed on this forum. The major themes you touch on include 'can you really hear the difference', 'what is the point of diminishing returns on yourinvestment', 'if it sounds good to me it is good' (paraphrase of a tfarney quip), and 'crap may sound fine, too.'

While many will successfully argue that your testing method may be flawed, it did reveal to you some important information about your music and equipment. Since the HD650 is a fine can, you started with the most important part of the system. Why did pop sound similar but classical sound different? Perhaps the recording quality of the pop tune was poor while more attention was paid to the classical music production. The fact that you did notice a difference in sound quality may be also be attributed to your headphones and/or equipment.

I will keep an eye on this thread as it will surely be filled with strong opinions. The point of diminishing returns is of particular interest to me. When does the additional money you spend on equipment make such a little difference in SQ and your enjoyment of the music that it is no longer worthwhile.

 

[Navyblue]

When I plugged my AKG K501 into my external sound card, pre amp, and amp. They sounded different, with the amp sounding the best, but they are not night and day different. In fact it took me a while to learn those differences. And my wife who isn't into audio can't tell a difference.

As for the source, between the CDP and my PC, I prefer my CDP, but in a blind test I am not confident that I can tell a them apart. I think I began to believe that synergy and taste plays a bigger role than the price tag of a source.

I have been itching to get a better source and amp. However, this is exactly my greatest fear. So if I plunge down a good amount of money and I have to really squint hard to tell the difference, I consider it a disappointment.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a genius to tell an AKG from a Beyerdynamic or a Sennheizer or a Grado.

I am interested to hear from those who have more experience and knowledge on this as well.

 

[Budgie]

I have been around audio since the early 70's. It used to be generally accepted that the transducer (speaker or headphone) is the weakest link in the chain. It's still true. The freq. response anomalies, distortions etc. are dramatically larger in the transducer, then any were else in the chain. Thats why it is easy to hear the difference in speakers or phones, but much harder to hear them in the rest of the chain. No amp or source (etc) can make up for poor transducers. I think a lot have people have been lead to believe that the opposite is true.

 

[tfarney]

I frequent another board, mostly populated by Englishmen, with many members of the trade in residence. One of the most respected members there is a very high-end dealer who provides gear and personal service to a couple of hundred private customers in and around London. Inspired by the badgering of his 30-something sons that holding on to CDPs was so 80s, he recently ripped a bunch of lossless files to a Mac Mini and used it as the source in his reference system.

A couple of days later, he stopped selling CD players.

When he reported this story on the board, I wasn't at all surprised. Lossless is lossless. The simplest ripping software (iTunes, free) has good error correction that ensures that what goes on the hard drive matches what is on the cd and that what is played from RAM matches what is on the hard drive. And all over-engineering considered, you're not going to come up with a more stable drive than RAM. So would a Mac Mini, through the right DAC, match or surpass his best cdps? Sure, why not.

I asked the obvious question: Howard, what DAC were you using?

None, he answered. Just whatever DAC is built into the Mini. A couple of outraged audiophiles protested. One went out and searched for data. He came back with the specs on the optical output of a Mac Mini:

Jack Type: 3.5mm Optical Jack
Output Data Formats: S/PDIF (IEC60958-3), AC3
Output Sample Rates: 32KHz, 44.1KHz, 48KHz, 64KHz, 88.2KHz, 96KHz
Bits per Sample: 16 or 24 (S/PDIF),16 (AC3)
Frequency Response: 20Hz – 20KHz, +/-0dB
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR): >130dB
Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise (THD+N): <-130dB (0.00003%)
Channel Separation: >130dB

If the ceiling on the point of diminishing returns gets any lower in the digital realm, we will be crawling on our bellies beneath it.

Nothing in the world wrong with buying very expensive electronic, even digital components, but you should probably understand that you're paying much for little. And personally, I really can't hear much difference and pay attention to the music at the same time anyway.

Yes, there is a huge difference between my friend's audiophile system and my modest one. HUGE. But for giggles once, we unplugged his rack of McIntosh and plugged in my very average Yamaha cdp and old Harman Kardon integrated amp. 99.99% of the difference was his Legend speakers.

Tim

 

[Dreadhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif I frequent another board, mostly populated by Englishmen, with many members of the trade in residence. One of the most respected members there is a very high-end dealer who provides gear and personal service to a couple of hundred private customers in and around London. Inspired by the badgering of his 30-something sons that holding on to CDPs was so 80s, he recently ripped a bunch of lossless files to a Mac Mini and used it as the source in his reference system. A couple of days later, he stopped selling CD players. When he reported this story on the board, I wasn't at all surprised. Lossless is lossless. The simplest ripping software (iTunes, free) has good error correction that ensures that what goes on the hard drive matches what is on the cd and that what is played from RAM matches what is on the hard drive. And all over-engineering considered, you're not going to come up with a more stable drive than RAM. So would a Mac Mini, through the right DAC, match or surpass his best cdps? Sure, why not. I asked the obvious question: Howard, what DAC were you using? None, he answered. Just whatever DAC is built into the Mini. A couple of outraged audiophiles protested. One went out and searched for data. He came back with the specs on the optical output of a Mac Mini: Jack Type: 3.5mm Optical Jack Output Data Formats: S/PDIF (IEC60958-3), AC3 Output Sample Rates: 32KHz, 44.1KHz, 48KHz, 64KHz, 88.2KHz, 96KHz Bits per Sample: 16 or 24 (S/PDIF),16 (AC3) Frequency Response: 20Hz – 20KHz, +/-0dB Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR): >130dB Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise (THD+N): <-130dB (0.00003%) Channel Separation: >130dB If the ceiling on the point of diminishing returns gets any lower in the digital realm, we will be crawling on our bellies beneath it. Nothing in the world wrong with buying very expensive electronic, even digital components, but you should probably understand that you're paying much for little. And personally, I really can't hear much difference and pay attention to the music at the same time anyway. Yes, there is a huge difference between my friend's audiophile system and my modest one. HUGE. But for giggles once, we unplugged his rack of McIntosh and plugged in my very average Yamaha cdp and old Harman Kardon integrated amp. 99.99% of the difference was his Legend speakers. Tim

Come on Tim that digital source doesn't even cost 2.5k so it can't even be near high end..... Just kidding...

That story doesn't surprise me at all, but every time I say I can't hear any difference my lowly DAC1 is the problem or the fact that I don't have any phones worth more than a grand. LOL! People with too much money will always delude themselves one way or another.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadhead /img/forum/go_quote.gif Come on Tim that digital source doesn't even cost 2.5k so it can't even be near high end..... Just kidding... That story doesn't surprise me at all, but every time I say I can't hear any difference my lowly DAC1 is the problem or the fact that I don't have any phones worth more than a grand. LOL! People with too much money will always delude themselves one way or another. Cheers, Chris

I agree if the source is lossless. Like flac. I cannot hear a difference between flac or wave.

But the question rises if a better analoge output stage isn't gonna raise the sound considderably. A mac mini has limited components..nobody on this planet is gonna convince me that a high end analoge output stage isn't better then a mac mini with limiting components.

So, if it was digital transfer, it might be true, analogue, don't think so.

Limited power and quality components never surpass any high end caps, resisters, internal wiring etc.

I think he was simply giving trendy people what they wanted, a mac mini.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif I frequent another board, mostly populated by Englishmen, with many members of the trade in residence. One of the most respected members there is a very high-end dealer who provides gear and personal service to a couple of hundred private customers in and around London. Inspired by the badgering of his 30-something sons that holding on to CDPs was so 80s, he recently ripped a bunch of lossless files to a Mac Mini and used it as the source in his reference system. A couple of days later, he stopped selling CD players. When he reported this story on the board, I wasn't at all surprised. Lossless is lossless. The simplest ripping software (iTunes, free) has good error correction that ensures that what goes on the hard drive matches what is on the cd and that what is played from RAM matches what is on the hard drive. And all over-engineering considered, you're not going to come up with a more stable drive than RAM. So would a Mac Mini, through the right DAC, match or surpass his best cdps? Sure, why not. I asked the obvious question: Howard, what DAC were you using? None, he answered. Just whatever DAC is built into the Mini. A couple of outraged audiophiles protested. One went out and searched for data. He came back with the specs on the optical output of a Mac Mini: Jack Type: 3.5mm Optical Jack Output Data Formats: S/PDIF (IEC60958-3), AC3 Output Sample Rates: 32KHz, 44.1KHz, 48KHz, 64KHz, 88.2KHz, 96KHz Bits per Sample: 16 or 24 (S/PDIF),16 (AC3) Frequency Response: 20Hz – 20KHz, +/-0dB Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR): >130dB Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise (THD+N): <-130dB (0.00003%) Channel Separation: >130dB If the ceiling on the point of diminishing returns gets any lower in the digital realm, we will be crawling on our bellies beneath it. Nothing in the world wrong with buying very expensive electronic, even digital components, but you should probably understand that you're paying much for little. And personally, I really can't hear much difference and pay attention to the music at the same time anyway. Yes, there is a huge difference between my friend's audiophile system and my modest one. HUGE. But for giggles once, we unplugged his rack of McIntosh and plugged in my very average Yamaha cdp and old Harman Kardon integrated amp. 99.99% of the difference was his Legend speakers. Tim

those figures are nice marketing. nowhere near that mac mini has 130db!

If someone was to measure the real figures.....

It doesn't mean, or i don't say the mac mini can't sound good, but exceptional is another thing.

I know enough people owning those gadgets but for real sound they stick to other devices.

 

[Duggeh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif I asked the obvious question: Howard, what DAC were you using? None, he answered. Just whatever DAC is built into the Mini. A couple of outraged audiophiles protested. One went out and searched for data. He came back with the specs on the optical output of a Mac Mini:

I'd like you to explain how he got any sound at all from an optical output if he wasn't using a DAC.

Kthx.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree if the source is lossless. Like flac. I cannot hear a difference between flac or wave. But the question rises if a better analoge output stage isn't gonna raise the sound considderably. A mac mini has limited components..nobody on this planet is gonna convince me that a high end analoge output stage isn't better then a mac mini with limiting components. So, if it was digital transfer, it might be true, analogue, don't think so. Limited power and quality components never surpass any high end caps, resisters, internal wiring etc. I think he was simply giving trendy people what they wanted, a mac mini.

Believe what you must, but the guy is a serious high-end (Harbeth, Meridian, that sort of thing) retailer and the audience he was talking to were serious audiophiles, many of whom protested against his conclusions. I'm sure he was bi-passing the headphone amp built into the Mac Mini, ie: he was taking a line out. But he specifically said he was using the Mac's DAC, which means he was using the analog line-level output stage.

I don't doubt for a moment that the output stages of many high-end DACs would sound quite different. In fact, I would contend that the output stages make up the differences between most DACs, that most audiophile DACs alter the tone to taste in the ouput stage and that alteration is most of what audiophiles hear.

Given the same file resolution and a relatively neutral output stage, would the DAC in a Mac (Dr. Seuss here...) and a $4,000 DAC sound identical? No. There are other factors, like power supply, separation of analog and digital paths, quality of caps and resistors, etc. But I'd bet on an ABX between just about any decent quality DACs with relatively neutral output stages playing 16-bit files. And what I'd be betting is that you couldn't consistently ID the >$1000 DAC against the <$200 one.

It's not that there isn't a difference, it's that most of it is, IMO, additive, and what is not is small. A tweak. If you already have the phones, speakers and amps of your dreams, if you already have high-quality EQ, so you can add or subtract warmth, or whatever, as needed, then you might want to look into studio-quality resolution in a DAC (then you might be able to hear it). Or if you want an audiophile DAC that adds color (warmth in an effort to make your digital sound more analog) over which you have no control, at the source, that's OK too. Your call. But it is a subjective decision, not an objective advantage.

MHO. YMMV.

Tim

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd like you to explain how he got any sound at all from an optical output if he wasn't using a DAC. Kthx.

Obviously if he said he was using the DAC in his Mac Mini, he wasn't using optical output so, also obviously, the data above would be altered by the line-level output stage of the Mini.

Tim

 

[Duggeh]

...and so also obviously, the sound is not going to match those specifications because I'd bet my bottom dollar that whatever the specs on the macmini DAC say, that the output stage is a bunch of foost compared to a decent output stage on a good DAC/CDP/whatever.

 

[Navyblue]

So I guess the ultimate questions is, when a reasonably competent source is used, how much does the source influence the overall absolute sound output quality (as oppose to subjective difference in presentation/colouration), and how much of those are actually audible?

*off to get my soda and popcorn*

 

[memepool]

I use a Mac Mini as a music server via optical out into my Arcam DAC. It's excellent for the level of convenience but doesn't sound quite as good as an Arcam Delta 250 transport ( the last one dedicated they made ). Mostly because of the Arcam's clock syncing I suspect.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...and so also obviously, the sound is not going to match those specifications because I'd bet my bottom dollar that whatever the specs on the macmini DAC say, that the output stage is a bunch of foost compared to a decent output stage on a good DAC/CDP/whatever.

I don't know what "foost" is, but I know this guy has as much experience with high-end audio as anyone I know, and I know what he said. But if what you're saying is that the differences between decent quality DACs and expensive ones is mostly in the analog output stage, we are in agreement.

Tim