[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by sTaTIx But you see, it doesn't matter if you want to hear the difference or not. Just the suggestion of a possibility that there's a difference can sway one's mind. ... Just the expectation, not the want or hope, is enough.

That's not a logical conclusion. First: your implied assumption that I do expect some differences is wrong and arbitrary. I just leave the possibility open. Or, more precisely: I just listen with open ears, without any expectation. From your argumentation I suppose you think that an attitude which categorically excludes sonic differences (e.g. based on physical theories?) is «impartial». Do you seriously mean this? Is it the more «scientific» approach to «know» in advance that there will be no difference? If I think this to the end, expecting that such a precondition can only lead to a negative judgement, the only result which will pass for valid in your eyes is that there is indeed no difference.

 

[Achilles]

I hope its not to late to beat this to death. Ok, it prob is but oh well.

Put me in with the 'no difference in digital outs' or ‘digital is digital is digital’ category.

I don't know why people always underestimate the physiological effect of belief. In fact, this thread more than proves the point. Those who hear an audible difference in sound output, really do hear the difference. I mean the difference in sound actually exists. It just isn’t the audio equipment that creates that difference but instead by ones assumption.

The increase in sound quality that can occur from persuasion is much more significant, and just as real, as that which the most expensive equipment can produce.

 

[sTaTIx]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ That's not a logical conclusion. First: your implied assumption that I do expect some differences is wrong and arbitrary. I just leave the possibility open.

Exactly. You've left the possibility open. The fact that there is a possibility in your mind is all that it takes for the mind to amplify or create any perceived differences.

Quote:

From your argumentation I suppose you think that an attitude which categorically excludes sonic differences (e.g. based on physical theories?) is «impartial». Do you seriously mean this? Is it the more «scientific» approach to «know» in advance that there will be no difference?

I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. Beeyitch!

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by sTaTIx Exactly. You've left the possibility open. The fact that there is a possibility in your mind is all that it takes for the mind to amplify or create any perceived differences. I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. Beeyitch!

So what's the difference between not leaving this possibility open (that there can be a sonic difference) and excluding sonic differences?

(Reverse: The fact that you consider sonic differences impossible in your mind is all that it takes for the mind to deny any perceived differences.)

 

[JaZZ]

Achilles...

I see it that way: there are some who believe and some who listen. Sure, those who listen aren't immune to illusions, but those who refuse to are definitely just believers.

 

[Solude]

Didn't want to pull out the papers but frankly those who don't believe are typically engineers and psychologists. If you aren't a professional or student of the above you have no background in why the audio business is how it is. Neither is purely defensive, students of either can use it as an offensive force of persuasion .

With the exception of first time reviewers, everyone else is going to be persuaded by price, by name, by salesman, by reviews to have a preconception of what to expect. Anyway just to swing it another way to try and make you understand how it is...

Your computer is nearly 100% digital with voltage levels representing 1s and 0s flying around at speeds miles above and beyond that of a CDP. Now why is it that such a high performance machine comparatively to the simple CDP uses such cheap components, such piss poor cabling, poor casing, vibrates like crazy yet performs perfectly? Simple digital is digital is digital. 20 years ago it may have been required to use high quality pieces to get the job done but today the bottom of the bin is still miles ahead of the best from decades ago.

So answer me this if the digital in your PC does the job with such poor components, why does your CDP require higher performance parts on the digital side when it is antiquated by comparison? Redgum uses PC CDROM in their line, 47 Labs makes no attempt to reduce jitter in their DAC... old truths are falling.

 

[JaZZ]

Solude...

...the digital section in my PC does its job to my full satisfaction. This because I have no special demand when playing MP3s or CDs while working on it. When I want to exclusively enjoy music I listen with my main rig, which sounds much better – due to less interferences, the though-out design and the more expensive components. This even when I use my Bel Canto DAC2 with my computer.

My question again: Have you ever compared different CD transports? Or did you refuse to because it makes no sense since they sound the same anyway? That's the difference between theory (belief) and practice (listening), and everybody who wants to convince others should at least have gotten over the first stage.

JaZZ

 

[David D.]

Ich war einige Tage aus der Stadt und hatte keinen PC zur hand, also konnte Ich nicht antwortwen.
Da Sie nicht mit meiner Englischer sprache zufrieden sind, nutze Ich die gelegenheit Ihnen ein paar worte in der Deutschen sprache zu schreiben. Vieleicht verstehen Sie einiges besser so?
Eigentlich brauche Ich Ihnen nicht viel mehr zu schreiben da einige andere teilnehmer dieses Forums schon genug zu Ihnen gesagt haben. Trotzdem, halten Sie sich freundlicher weise mehr an Fakten und eigene Ehfahrungen als an Ihre ziemlich nutzlose "kommentare" die nichts auf einem solchen Forum verlohren haben.

Und noch etwas: Ich hoffe das Ihr Deutsch und Serbisch besser ist als mein Englisch, sonst ist Ihr vorriges kommentar weniger als null wert. Alles Klar?

Alles gute, "altes eisen"!

 

[David D.]

"...sorry, of course I never intended to spoil your thread that way (actually quite the opposite). "

You are not the one (or two) who try to spoil this thread. I wish there were more guys like you who like to share experiences with others and much less those who wan't to prove us that such differences don't egsist (but in our mind).
But we still are the more patient and tolerant people then those "poor" guys. We never did make any effort to "convert" someone and long time ago we have learned not to waste our positive energy trying to make others "believe". Why they feel so challenged with such threads remains a mystery to me. They have to work more on themselves I believe.
Perhaps, finaly , such people will learn they lessons and won't waste our time with such uneffective and most of all boring "statements".

Best regards!

 

[Tim D]

I've used USB cables before that worked fine for my other USB peripherals but when on my Onkyo USB audio processor it causes audible breakups and noise.

Also it just isn't as good a transport either since it is connected to a loud box full of fans, that seems picky about IRQ sharing as well. Oh but its digital so it should be perfect.

 

[JaZZ]

Hi David

Thanks for the flowers! Don't be too strict and general in judging the «ultra-skeptics». Given that not everybody has the opportunity to do such comparing tests, one may very well rate them as just unnecessary in view of theory. Like in the beginning of the CD age everyboy expected those digital «turntables» to sound identical. It has turned out that this isn't the case. But I guess it would have been hard to convince people without the corresponding hearing experience of this.

Übrigens tust du Spad in diesem Fall Unrecht. Mit seinen Anspielungen auf deine Englischkenntnisse wollte er lediglich – halt auf seine typische Art – ausdrücken, dass diese dich den humoristischen Charakter seiner Antworten nicht hätten erkennen lassen, die eigentlich gar nicht aggressiv gemeint waren. Ich habe dir ein Mail zu schicken versucht; leider ist dies nicht möglich. Könntest du umgekehrt mit mir Kontakt aufnehmen?

JaZZ

 

[David D.]

I will try to muddy the waters a bit further.
I believe that CD transports actually affect the sound more than DAC's (in some cases at least). But the DAC's have made a big progress in the last few years. In the DAC the d/a chip itself plays a smaller role then the output stage. The proof for this is that you can get sound "to die for" even with some "dated" 18 or 20 bit players/DAC's.
You can upgrade your not so good CD (or DVD) player with a new DAC but don't expect that your good old Marantz CD 63mkII (or similar players) will give you a comparative sound to a really good CD transport.
When it comes to the higher end (costlier) CD players it's getting even tougher. Using these CD players as pure transports with additional DAC's can give you a different sound, but not necessarily better sound. I had such experiences and altough the "different" sound can please you on some recordings, my feeling was that it didn't justified the investment. It's the "Heavyweight", high priced models where the optimal results can be aproached with separate Drive/DAC's IMO. And it gets even more complicated. The Digital cable does play a great role also. Then the synergy between the Transport and the DAC. All this (and then some) can make this, at first, sexy way of digital reproduction a very complex and frustrating experience.
So, If you don't wan't to spend some serious amount of money (for a real high-end Transport & DAC & Digital cable & additional PC's), IMO, you will fare better with a high quality "one box" CD player.
Cheers!

Hallo Jazz! Ich habe gerade dein reply gelesen und werde auf jeden fall versuchen mit dir in Kontakt zu kommen!

 

[sTaTIx]

All I'm saying is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell whether or not your perceived differences are ACTUAL differences or not. That's all I'm saying. I never said there aren't differences, but just that unless you're a true, bona fide audiophile phenom, it's impossible to trust your own judgement.

Again, notice that I never say there isn't a difference or not. My point is that our minds cannot accurately and reliably determine any difference that is there.

 

[David D.]

"...old truths are falling."

There is not only one way/aproach to good sound.
Try to think about it.
And remember it.

 

[Solude]

I've spent time with many digital rigs in my time. From lowly HK 5 disc to Classe CDP.5 to Sony DVP-S7000/Adcom GDA-700 combo to Aragon D2A MK2 to Sony CX335 to PC CDROM to Adcom GDD-1 to recently a Shanling CD-S100 and yes once upon a time I did hear differences. Drastic differences between DACs, transports and even cabling.

Who hasn't gone to buy a piece because it uses the same as model X at twice the price or it was stereophile A in 199X or because it's said to have a signature sound that would mod your system just right? Every single one of us, that's who. Since none of us know for sure what's happening in every product it's impossible to know for sure what is sourcing the digital out.

Sound changes are possible on the analog side, not the digital side unless it's processed in some way.

Anyway back to the top... none of those transports sounded any different playing the same CD, at the same time, toggling between A/B. And the test was setup for the favored to win. Sony DVP-S7000 and .5M of digital cable vs. SB Live! and 8M sub cable to an Adcom GDA-700... THE SAME. Even the Shanling was only minutely better than the Sony changer. The Shanling gave up weight and smoothness in favor of improved detail and a somewhat dry presentation. Oh and the Sony vertical transport read scratched CDs where the 'highly regarded' Philips skipped. "But it's so highly regarded!" yeah well the proof is in the pudding my friend.

Simple facts near everyone grows up on...
You get what you pay for
Everyone hates the big corps

And lastly if bargain bin cabling is good enough inside the product why spend a fortune outside? The designer didn't think it would help why do you?