[TheGhostWhoWalks]

If there's anything that's worth the money, it's your source. In fact, I'd say that the source is likely more important than even the headphones.

909, we took a VERY similar upgrade path, and you're right, the changes are not subtle. I went from Planet, to Jupiter, to modded DV-50, to Reimyo CD-777. Each step was a BIG step up. And after getting the Reimyo, I finally had that feeling of "This is the sound I've been looking for. That perfect sound I've been hearing in my head." Ever since I've had that I've had NO desire to upgrade or look elsewhere. And I guess perhaps that's the biggest testament to a source's importance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it simply further reinforces the fact that if one has a really nice item, that other nice items in the chain will usually bring out the good stuff in each other.

This is something I whole-heartedly believe in. I see people around here all the time with a setup that goes something like:

High end headphone - $2k+
High end amp - $2k+
Source - $500

And I think: Why?

Your system is indeed a chain. If there's one weak link, the rest can be as strong as you want, but it won't matter if a weak link exists. I can have a $100k CDP and $100k amplifier, but if I've got it hooked up to $5 headhpnes it really doesn't matter because it's going to be like polishing a turd.

A truly great system has all parts that compliment each other. There is no weak link. If you have a great pair of headphones and a great amp, then you owe it to yourself to hear music from a great source. If the amp is amplifying crap and the headphones are reproducing crap, then it doesn't matter how great they are.

Another thing about a great system is they enhance the performance of each other. That's why when people wonder why I bought the R10s, it's solely because they're the most source/amp dependent headphone I know of. They are power hungry like crazy, but if you meet its demands it will shine like no headphone I've ever heard. But anything less and I wouldn't be getting even close to 100% out of them.

So, in conclusion, I don't think it's having a high end CDP that's important, what's most important is having a system that compliments each other. It's pointless to have one or two super strong points if the 3rd is weak. Build a system that compliments each piece to get the most from all of them.

 

[Icarium]

Some people would agree with you that source is the most important in the chain. And frankly you might be right. I certainly feel that source is very important.

However, the reality is 2k+ headphones are not only rare but are generally out of production. Also they maintain value and sometimes rise in value. So even if your source is radically going to change things it probably will even with a lesser source maintain its sound signature and give you an idea of where things are going to go if you go with this or that type of source. Sources, however, generally drop in at least 25-50 percent value as soon as they become used. So I feel as if I see a good deal on a rare headphone I might as well buy it and sort out the source thing later. As it is right now I pretty much have my heart set on a particular source, it just needs to come out.

Edit: For instance if I want a Remiyo CD777 right now I can find one (Or 2) for less than half of its msrp (3 year old player? I think) on Audiogon. While if I want to find an R10 or an SDS-XLR right now I will not only have to pay near or greater than msrp and more likely than not I'll have to wait no matter how much I offer.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

Oh, there's no doubt about that Icarium. If we viewed sources and headphones in another light it's kind of the equivalent of computers (sources) and cars (headphones). Old, classic cars not only maintain value, but drastically rise in value when they go OOP. Sources though are like computers in that new and (usually) better models are being produced consistently. Before the Reimyo, the Linn Sondek was the big boy on campus. It had everyone splooging over how great it was - best redbook player ever. Then the Reimyo came out and I knew quite a few people who got rid of the Sondek for the Reimyo. And it probably won't be long before someone tops the Reimyo as well (not counting those uber two box players).

The flip side of this though is that if you don't mind buying used you can find some great deals. I got very lucky to find my Reimyo at more than 1/2 off. And then I was VERY fortunate to even get my SDS-XLR barely used at a great deal (1/3 off was more than I could've ever hoped for). My R10s were full price though, but perhaps the only part of my system I very much think justifies full price as well.

 

[Icarium]

Yeah. Wow good deal on the SDS-XLR. Definitely envious there. I think in the end people with weak sources will inevitably upgrade them or sell everything and get out because either they weren't really in it for maximize sound but just to hear something exclusive. At some point people realize that while 2000 for a headphone is definitely stretching it but seemingly worth it throwing down another 8 grand for a top notch amp/source/good cables will break them. I am definitely feeling a little bit of that right now.

I think I've found something workable though

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hehe, well was that the original position of the poster? He wanted to know if he should drop 1k+ on a player, I responded early on that I thought yes it would be a solid idea based on garbage in and garbage out and that provided one has the ancillary components which are up to snuff, a good CD player is indeed still worth it though no doubt my next move is a server to a sweet DAC.

I think that will be my route as well. I trust my ears enough to discern what's quality and what synergizes well. Synergy is one of the benefits of a great cdp, but trying various combinations is part of the fun. Off to the server and DAC! To the rest of you, please please debate away.

 

[tin ears]

Not sure about the worth of high end CDP's, but I can tell you that a well made SACD player and a well recorded and mastered SACD takes the sound up a notch compared with CD, without a doubt.

I just got the Avalon SACD and compared it with my original Avalon CD. The improvement is obvious.

It is now my educated opinion that if you are going to attempt to improve upon the sound of Redbook CD, you are better off getting a player that does SACD well and begin to invest in the better SACD's out there. Moreover, until computer sources can do high res audio, well built SACD players will hold this obvious and significant advantage over computers/music servers as well.

 

[bangraman]

What p's me off about a lot of SACD's though is that they aren't better than CD. And in some dual-layer discs the CD layer is obviously compromised, whether intentionally or not.

 

[tin ears]

Bangraman,

I can't agree or disagree about the CD to SACD comparo. I only have one to compare.

However, I don't understand why anyone would care how the CD layer of an SACD sounds. In fact, I don't understand why it is on there at all. Moreover, I believe that SACD makers should forget about wasting their time and money with multichannel, and focus their efforts on making the very best two channel SACD that they can. I believe that if they did, they would have more, great sounding SACD's to choose from.

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

While SACDs are a higher resolution format that doesn't really matter much if the source playing them isn't up to snuff. The best redbook players clean the clocks of most SACD players. And when you get into the upper echelon of both (which I've heard) the differences aren't all that great. For instance: compare any high end SACD player with my Reimyo and you aren't going to be able to tell much of a difference. However, basic SACD compared to basic CD will sound better.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tin ears /img/forum/go_quote.gif Moreover, I believe that SACD makers should forget about wasting their time and money with multichannel, and focus their efforts on making the very best two channel SACD that they can. I believe that if they did, they would have more, great sounding SACD's to choose from.

From a marketing POV dropping the multi-channel would probably be a bad move. Apart from a few devotees of stereo , such as folks here my guess is that most consumers want the multi-thingy to go with the home cinema stuff otherwise they would just buy a CD player. A handful of audiophiles will not keep SACD afloat.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tin ears /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bangraman, I can't agree or disagree about the CD to SACD comparo. I only have one to compare. However, I don't understand why anyone would care how the CD layer of an SACD sounds. In fact, I don't understand why it is on there at all. Moreover, I believe that SACD makers should forget about wasting their time and money with multichannel, and focus their efforts on making the very best two channel SACD that they can. I believe that if they did, they would have more, great sounding SACD's to choose from.

While I think they should still put a lot of effort into making the CD layer as good as possible, I do agree that they should focus their efforts on making the best 2-ch instead of some flaffy 5-ch surround when most people in the world don't even have a properly set-up surround sound system. Getting two speakers to sound near-perfect in a room is already a challenge. Adding three or more speakers to the equation only complicates things. Kudos to those who have five identical speakers set up in a room with great acoustics.

hciman77, yeah you may be right, but that's not how it's supposed to be. SACD wasn't meant to just be some fancy surround sound version of CD. Good equipment is essential for maximum enjoyment of SACDs, but then again, most people aren't exploiting the CD to the fullest yet. I've heard a few very nice CDPs, including the fairly new Naim CD555/PS555, Meridian G08, Chord Blu/DAC64, etc. These players are capable of extracting information from CDs you didn't know were present before and it was only after hearing those players that I realised how darn good the redbook standard is. I must confess I haven't critically compared CDs to SACDs, but I know that SACDs are capable of at least as good music reproduction having heard various very good SACDPs. Personally, the reason why I buy SACDs is because I'm convinced that mastering engineers probably spend more time and effort mastering an SACD than they do for a regular CD. This is of course not always the case. I have a few SACDs that were recorded poorly in the first place.

 

[tin ears]

Hc,

I disagree. It is the audiophiles who are indeed the only ones keeping the SACD format afloat. I believe that those HT enthusiasts who have a decent multichannel set up and are interested in multichannel surround sound, are getting it from DVD's and, in the future, HDDVD or Blue RAY. In this way, they can not only enjoy the surround, they can watch the performance as well. Why waste time and money with audio only multichannel SACD? Furthermore, HDDVD and Blue Ray have the potential to sound as good or better than multichannel SACD.

So, that leaves two channel SACD to the audiophiles. Apparently, there are enough audiophiles around the world to keep all these audiophile companies in business. Why not cater to them further by admitting audio only multi- channel is a bust and offering more high quality 2 channel SACDs and more SOTA players to play it on?

Ghost,

Based upon my recent experience, I'd bet the best SACD on the best SACD player could easily outperform your player on CD only. I would suggest you do the comparo to the newer two channel only SACD offerings from Meitner, Ayre, Esoteric, and Marantz playing SACD VS your player on CD. Your player is ultimately limited by the format.

I would say that the improvement I hear in going from CD to SACD is about the same as (on video) going from a good progressive DVD player on a good HD capable monitor to a good High Def video source. Note that I think that on most flat panels, progressive DVD video quality is excellent. Point being that once you get to the best progressive DVD has to offer, you really can't go any further. To get to the next level, you need to go High Def.

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tin ears /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bangraman, I can't agree or disagree about the CD to SACD comparo. I only have one to compare. However, I don't understand why anyone would care how the CD layer of an SACD sounds. In fact, I don't understand why it is on there at all. Moreover, I believe that SACD makers should forget about wasting their time and money with multichannel, and focus their efforts on making the very best two channel SACD that they can. I believe that if they did, they would have more, great sounding SACD's to choose from.

For a start, there's all sorts of stuff you can do with the CD layer that you can't do with the SACD layer. I also doubt the multi / two channel argument is the issue. Some of the best SACD's out there are 5.1's. The problem seems to be the quality or the format of the original mastering in many cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGhostWhoWalks /img/forum/go_quote.gif While SACDs are a higher resolution format that doesn't really matter much if the source playing them isn't up to snuff. The best redbook players clean the clocks of most SACD players. And when you get into the upper echelon of both (which I've heard) the differences aren't all that great. For instance: compare any high end SACD player with my Reimyo and you aren't going to be able to tell much of a difference. However, basic SACD compared to basic CD will sound better.

Well... However you argue the merits of upsampling, putting a higher-quality signal to start with makes a difference. I suppose it depends on the interpretation of 'much of a difference'. I happen to believe there isn't a whole lot of difference between the more commonly mentioned / acquired high-end and the very high end in terms of relative changes in sound quality and as I said before, the actual quantifiable difference is more in the form of the overall ownership experience. However within that relatively minor difference, I happen to think there's a bigger edge with SACD and SACD-capable players, and also if you compare DSD upsampling vs the more regular upping of the likes of the Reimyo.

 

[neilvg]

It's hard to make a blanket statement that all SACD's sound better than their RBCD counterparts. Like others have said previously, SACD as a format may hold more potential, but the actual content in specific may not. Also, there are indeed differences in the quality of how the content is handled on some SACD releases. Check out Dark Side of the Moon. The SACD Layer is like a different recording, and further research yields that they were handled differently. AFAIK, the RBCD layer is a plain remaster, with the 2ch transfer being remastered only. The SACD layer OTOH was remixed from the multitrack tapes and while it may have a similar mix, benefits greatly from the various editing and cleanup abilities available once you go back to this point in the production process.

Anyway, there are some CD players out there that do a tremendously good job on RBCD. If you have a moderately good CD player which does SACD and you notice how good the SACD layer sounds, many times (without going into specifics here) this is at least how good the RBCD layer sounds on top tier players (again, no specifics, but the EMM Labs is an example of this). Of course, the SACD on the EMM Labs takes it a notch higher, but it is very close relatively speaking, between the two formats with this player (SE version only). Apparently the NWO 2.5 by APL takes this to another level and claims that DVD-A, SACD, and RBCD are almost indistinguishable. Assuming, the layers come from the same source (and does not have the same issues as Dark Side).

Neil

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tin ears /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe that SACD makers should forget about wasting their time and money with multichannel, and focus their efforts on making the very best two channel SACD that they can.

Multichannel audio is just about the only clear advantage to the SACD format. Doing away with that would make the whole format redundant.

See ya
Steve