[philodox]

Bigshot - It seems to me that you are drawing conclusions based on your own logic, backing them up with your 'music business credentials' and then stating your opinion as fact. Kind of arrogant.

If you think that a $4000 CDP is much the same as a $300 one I am sorry, but I have not found this to be the truth myself. Which $4000 CDP's are you referring to by the way? Have you ever opened them up to compare the construction/components? Were they both considered leaders in their price bracket? It does no good to compare a $300 great budget source to a overpriced $4000 source that is not very well regarded.

That said, I think there are good deals that can be found so that you dont have to spend an arm and a leg to get a good CDP... and I encourage anyone to jump on these when they get a chance. Less money spent on gear leaves you more to buy music.

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok I really like a very airy representation (not bright), and pronounced details, but does it mean that the system has to be the one that "digs" through every detail? I don't mean I wanna hear new things in a music, but something that makes the other musical instruments that are not the main one become more audible and adds to overall musicality.... But that means the system has to be very detailed, no? I wonder which source upgrade will give me similar as what I am hearing now, but more enjoyable... something like my preference of sound + 2

+2 ..
may be upgrading on the same line ?
I heard a Nad ( probably it was the 521 ) and also read a bit around Nads cdp when I was about buying my current cd player ( the Shanling s100mkII )
If well recall they're not the most hf deatail esposing machines around .. and for this fact I eventually took the Shanling over a Nad .

the Azur c640 come in mind , probably worth checking , it has a good price and also some good reviews .

 

[toor]

First of all let me say that I don't feel that bigshot is being arrogant at all. He added a valuable (to me at least) opinion that he couldnt discern much of a difference between transports. It would be useful if he elaborated on what he compared but the fact remains he feels there are no audible differences. Recently I have been going around to various hifi forums trying to find if there is a concensuse else where whether there is a difference in transports and optical vs co-axial cable (in the latter I have been firmly convinced there is none).

One interesting post I came across, and I have no ability to check its veracity (but why would someone make this up?)
Quote:

Anyways, there were some arguments here whether cd players sound differently connected digitally to the receiver/preamp , ie w/o the use of its' DACs. Well, believe it or not, this is not the only forum debating this Back in Israel we have a very nice & professional forum, and someone decided on a whole new approach: Let's ask the manufacurers themselves! So an email was sent to a lot of high end equipment manufacurers, like Theta, Krell, Meridian, Naim, etc. The email asked them to explain why their transport is better than the cheapest one available. No talk about DACs, features, or reliability - just the audio quality of the transport. Now, if any of the manufacturers gives a satisfying technical answer - well, that's it. No more arguments. If no one does, it doesn't prove anything, but it makes it harder to believe there's actually any difference. So, what were the results you're asking? For starters, only a few bothered to reply. Those that did reply (Theta, Naim & Audiomeca) gave a "the transports is better because it just is" kind of answers. I'd like to quote from Theta Digital's answer - it's brilliant: "That said, there are some questions to which we still do not have answers. The consensus among most audio journalists is that there are in fact sonic benefits to be had from separate transports. The nature of the improvement may be summarized as overall greated clarity.... ...Why this should happen is another question. We believe that the reasons are: A) very low jitter; B) separation of drive and dac reduces distortion from RFI; separation of power supplies lets each component do its job better. I am not suggesting that these are hard scientific reasons, but they are reasonable surmises. I wish I had better answers for you, but this is what we can offer as educated surmises. The pragmatic answer is that people buy our transports -- or Levinson, or Krell -- because they hear a positive difference..." Or, to summarise: we have no idea why our transports are better, but people listening to them say they are. I've saved the best for last. the same email was sent to TNT Audio magazine, and their reply: "There are many things that - technically speaking - shouldn´t affect sound. Among these: cables, transports, accessories of various kind etc. Nonetheless their effect on the sound IS self-evident. Since you seem a bunch of scientists...I suggest the first step of scientific approach: TEST. Compare a cheap cd player used as transport and then a hi-end one, all other conditions being equal. If you don´t hear any difference...OKAY. But if you hear a difference, you should start to investigate deeper and formulate a reasonable theory"

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toor First of all let me say that I don't feel that bigshot is being arrogant at all. He added a valuable (to me at least) opinion that he couldnt discern much of a difference between transports. It would be useful if he elaborated on what he compared but the fact remains he feels there are no audible differences. Recently I have been going around to various hifi forums trying to find if there is a concensuse else where whether there is a difference in transports and optical vs co-axial cable (in the latter I have been firmly convinced there is none). One interesting post I came across, and I have no ability to check its veracity (but why would someone make this up?)

I think most people here are talking about CD players and their analog output stages, not CD players as digital transports. I can't hear adifference when I use different CD sources and run them through the same DAC. On the other hand, I find the analog output stages of my various CD players to be quite different. I'm not sure that Bigshot was limiting his commnets to CD players as transports... but I could be wrong.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toor optical vs co-axial cable (in the latter I have been firmly convinced there is none)

Depends on your environment. Coaxial is technically superior, but in a computer as source situation noise can be introduced into the line and as a result optical is preferable. Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleestack I think most people here are talking about CD players and their analog output stages, not CD players as digital transports.

I know I am. If we are talking about CD players, you need to take the whole package into account.

However, that is not to say that I think all transports are equal. You have to remember that a transport is not just the assembly that reads the data from the CD and outputs a digital signal. There are other factors that need to be considered like the power supply and the clock.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleestack I think most people here are talking about CD players and their analog output stages, not CD players as digital transports. I can't hear adifference when I use different CD sources and run them through the same DAC. On the other hand, I find the analog output stages of my various CD players to be quite different. I'm not sure that Bigshot was limiting his commnets to CD players as transports... but I could be wrong.

I think the comments reflected output stages as well. That is how I interpretted it anyway. Output stages of course vary. Mine for instance has an opamp based ss stage and then for fun a tube buffered stage as an optional output. This stage proceeds from the ss stage.

The zapfilter, renowned little device, is a completely reworked output stage. The problem in a way is that all players with it will essentially become a zapfilter player, little matters before it with regards to the changes in sound. This is from LC Audio folks as well as those at Parts Connexion who install them.

It all depends on the circuit in my opinion. If a $4k amp is the same in topology with pretty well the same parts, well guess what? a solid chassis is not going to make much of a difference in the sound compared to the $300 jobby that is identical inside but with a light plastic chassis.

Once one gets into various dac options (ring dacs etc) then the sound will be different. Generally, better parts make for a better sound, the black gate phenomenon attests to this. Yet it is not absolute. In the end, go with your own ears.

Caveat Emptor! Don't disregard associated equipement either. If everything sucks in the chain and one throws in a multibuck source, magic won't spontaneously flow from the transducers.

 

[ssportclay]

I feel that better CD players are well worth it.My SACDmods Denon 2900 blows my Azur 640C out of the water.Its like the difference between hearing a recording or having the performance done in your living room.I am really impressed with its Zapfilter but it will do nothing to correct jitter issues.The added detail and realism that a good chip set and a quality clock can bring cannot be denied.

 

[meat01]

Quote:

My SACDmods Denon 2900 blows my Azur 640C out of the water.

 

[GoRedwings19]

DJmocok>If you like your Nad and are happy with it then why upgrade?

You Need to PM your address again. UK mail made a huge boo boo

 

[HiWire]

There's a review of the Naim CD5 in HiFi+ magazine that damns it with faint praise. I'm thinking of just settling for a NAD C542 or checking out Cambridge Audio's new 740...

 

[Ferbose]

I believe that CD playback hardware has improved so much in the last few years that even inexpensive players can deliver decent sound. Even between an M-audio transit ($75) and my DAC1 ($975) the differences are only subtle. $900 does not buy a whole lot of improvement in CD playback. The money would be better spent on headphones and amplification if budget is limited. However, to build a really good system a hi-end source would be indsipensible. Very good systems in the end is very dependent on synergy and tweaking. Only if the source has no obvious glitch can one really start to fine-tune the system. The weakness in source can not be corrected downstream equipment, IMHO, but only masked. But masking ultimately leads to degradation in other aspects. Without a hi-end source, it is pretty hard to know the real sonic character of dwonstream equipment.
IMO, if one's goal is audiophile-system-on-a-budget, hi-end source is not worth the investment. If the goal is a pursue of genuine high-fidelity, hi-end source is a must and should be acuired first so the rest of the system can develop.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox Bigshot - It seems to me that you are drawing conclusions based on your own logic, backing them up with your 'music business credentials' and then stating your opinion as fact. Kind of arrogant.

What am I supposed to do? Preface everything I say with a disclaimer that I might not know what I'm talking about? I'll present what I believe, state the reasons I believe that way, and leave it up to others to decide its value. If they present more convincing arguments, I'm more than happy to learn from them and change my opinions if necessary. That's what a discussion is all about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox That said, I think there are good deals that can be found so that you dont have to spend an arm and a leg to get a good CDP... and I encourage anyone to jump on these when they get a chance. Less money spent on gear leaves you more to buy music.

That is exactly what I've been saying. You don't have to spend an arm and a leg to buy a good CD player.

See ya
Steve

 

[3lusiv3]

dj_mocok, if I was in your position I think I would be considering a DAC.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot What am I supposed to do? Preface everything I say with a disclaimer that I might not know what I'm talking about? I'll present what I believe, state the reasons I believe that way, and leave it up to others to decide its value. If they present more convincing arguments, I'm more than happy to learn from them and change my opinions if necessary. That's what a discussion is all about.

Fair enough, I guess it was just the 'tone' that set me off... funny how that transmits even though text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot That is exactly what I've been saying. You don't have to spend an arm and a leg to buy a good CD player.

Cool, nice to see that we can see eye to eye on some things.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot What am I supposed to do? Preface everything I say with a disclaimer that I might not know what I'm talking about?

Yeah, that sounds good.