[crazyfrenchman27]

The source matters a lot, but even a Meridian won't do magical things with your stock ipod buds.

I say spend about three to four times as much on your source as your headphones and you will be amply rewarded.

The people who spend thousands on tube amps are the crazy ones.

-Matt

 

[chcokr]

LOL, This doesn't feel like being on MY thread.

 

[Leporello]

GiGo is a sound principle, of course. But the fact is that compared to sonic errors that even the best transducers cause, the errors of even cheap cd players are vanishingly small.

I would choose my Philips pcdp & Stax combination over a Wadia / Mark Levinson / Golmund & Hd600 snake oil system any day.


Regards,

L.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello I would choose my Philips pcdp & Stax combination over a Wadia / Mark Levinson / Golmund & Hd600 snake oil system any day.

I would choose the latter system. Of course sound transducers alter the sound more than modern source devices, but the various forms of alteration/coloration can nonetheless happen on a similar quality level. The HD 600 with a good source, a good amp and a good snake-oil cable will sound better than any Stax system to my ears, let alone one with a mediocre source.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ The HD 600 with a good source, a good amp and a good snake-oil cable will sound better than any Stax system to my ears, let alone one with a mediocre source.

Yep, I only chose HD600 to highlight my opinion that one's preferred headphones are vastly more important! As for headphones per se: YMMV, of course (and I guess we agree to disagree about the relative merits of Senns vs. Stax

)


Regards,

L.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot But the truth is, the difference between a $200 stereo and a $2,000 stereo is MUCH greater the difference between a $2,000 stereo and a $20,000 one.

I agree with this completely... especially if you spend your $2000 wisely.

 

[lan]

>>>When I get an optical jack installed into my noggin to bypass my ears, I'll agree with you... until then, it's the vibrations of the original musical instruments reproduced through the vibrations of the speakers that I hear, not the current running through wires!

Of course, literally, what you hear is coming out the speakers but it's reflective of what's it's hooked up to. It's a system afterall, a complex one at that, and everything is related.

>>>These trained ears have a hard time telling the difference between one good midrange CD player and a high end one in blind A/B tests... Don't even get me started on cables!

Depends on the conditions. If it's unideal, then that situation is more levelling to any component in the system. Since most people's systems are in not ideal situations, the reality is the difference is little. But when you put that one component in conditions which are better, it's usually easier to hear the differences between a better and lesser component.

It is hard to convince some people on cables, tweaks, etc. I won't argue about that. Those people that I invite over to my place can easily hear the differences in my system though.

>>>By the way, I know what you are talking about when you point to harsh treble being a problem in some CD players. That's a clever little trick the manufacturers are playing on you.

Maybe but in my modding and tweaking experience, the units just don't use better parts or designs.

>>>This is 100% related to the frequency response curve.

Frequency response isn't the only indication of quality. Lesser systems are less resolving.

>>>It's a lot easier to adjust an equalizer than it is to go through the menu screens on my new SACD/DVD player!

Maybe an analog EQ with knobs but not a digital one where you still have to go through a menu.

>>>Top end equipment is designed to reproduce frequencies people can't hear, dynamic ranges they will never be able to use without blowing their eardrums off, and power headroom that would shred the most rugged speaker voice coils.

That's just one philosophy. Top end equipment also makes frequencies you hear better. It's less harsh, there's more low level detail. This is usually the most obvious when I turn down the system very low. A top notch system can reproduce a low volume playback with still very fine detail.

>>>It's very easy to lose perspective on how much of a difference things make.

Well for me I disagree with those expensive components. Some people say they have upgraded to a better source and I hear that "better" one but it never sounds that much better to me. I believe more in tweaking and not in throwing a bunch of money to solve the problem. The problem to getting better and better sound is not in the component approach but a system wide approach. Any upgrading I'd do or recommend has to be upstream more toward the source.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Inevitably, whenever someone says super-expensive high end equipment doesn't offer enough improvement over medium range equipment to justify the cost, someone always accuses them of having a crappy stereo or crappy ears. (Or a crappy listening room)

I didn't say that at all. I said that if one thinks the difference between a $100-200 CDP and a $5,000 CDP is only 1/10th of one percent, then one has a crappy stereo or crappy ears. I didn't say anything about whether the marginal improvement (be it 5%, 15% or whatever) justifies the cost, as that is something that each individual must determine for himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot These trained ears have a hard time telling the difference between one good midrange CD player and a high end one in blind A/B tests...

In that event, you may choose to put your money into other improvements or other things. But many of us readily hear differences between CDP's and the differences matter a lot. Therefore, while I respect your right to your value judgments and those of xantus, don't force them on the rest of us -- which is what you are essentially trying to do when you make categorical statements regarding how much of an improvement is offered by more expensive or better quality components.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan Top end equipment also makes frequencies you hear better. It's less harsh, there's more low level detail. This is usually the most obvious when I turn down the system very low. A top notch system can reproduce a low volume playback with still very fine detail.

The ability to reproduce the same sonic balances and detail at low volumes as in high volumes is all a function of the design of the speakers. The electronics have very little if anything to do with that.

Higher sampling rates can provide more detail in low volume situations, but the benefits are so far down below normal listening level, it doesn't make a difference in normal listening, except in mixing situations where it might be necessary to bring the volume of low level passages way up.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS In that event, you may choose to put your money into other improvements or other things. But many of us readily hear differences between CDP's and the differences matter a lot. Therefore, while I respect your right to your value judgments and those of xantus, don't force them on the rest of us -- which is what you are essentially trying to do when you make categorical statements regarding how much of an improvement is offered by more expensive or better quality components.

The only way to be able to say anything categorically is to do objective testing. I've done direct comparisons on many of the things I talk about, using my ears and the ears of other people with trained hearing. It's fine to claim the God given right to solipsism for yourself, but you're going to be disappointed if you expect me to agree with the superiority of the "refined and transparent sound of placebo". I call 'em like I hear 'em.

I'm always available for A/B listening tests in the Los Angeles area if anyone sees a mistake in what I say and can demonstrate it for me. That's the way I learn and correct my errors...

See ya
Steve

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The only way to be able to say anything categorically is to do objective testing. I've done direct comparisons on many of the things I talk about, using my ears and the ears of other people with trained hearing. It's fine to claim the God given right to solipsism for yourself, but you're going to be disappointed if you expect me to agree with the superiority of the "refined and transparent sound of placebo". I call 'em like I hear 'em. I'm always available for A/B listening tests in the Los Angeles area if anyone sees a mistake in what I say and can demonstrate it for me. That's the way I learn and correct my errors...

No thanks, we "solipsists" generally prefer not to waste our time with the Luddites.

 

[JefferyK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPL593H K-Mart CD players, CD quality sound for all players, I think that is a bad assumption and an incorrect statement. Not all source components have good sound just because they spin a CD. Many cheap CD players sound downright terrible. There are many reasons for this bad sound that range from cheap power supplies to crappy analog amplifer output stages.

I agree with this. Sometimes when I read posts on boards like this, I wonder if most people actually know what instruments sound like.

I remember seeing a thread on another site where a guy bitched and moaned about how CDs can't reproduce strings. "They sound all screetchy," etc., etc. And then someone asked him what his source was. Turned out it was a bottom-of-the-line Sony. Got himself a better-quality CDP, and suddenly the strings actually sounded like strings.

The greatest cans in the world won't make a mediocre CDP sound more musical. And crummy cans can make a stellar CDP sound lousy.

Jeffery

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I've done direct comparisons on many of the things I talk about, using my ears

I have done many comparisions myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The ability to reproduce the same sonic balances and detail at low volumes as in high volumes is all a function of the design of the speakers. The electronics have very little if anything to do with that.

And came to opposite conclusions

The electronics have a large effect on the sound quality. If there's less low level detail to begin with (from the source), it won't be heard (later on) with speakers/headphones.

It would be hard for us to convince each other otherwise based on our own personal experiences.

 

[jalapaeno]

though im new to high end audio, i had a good deal of experience building and fixing computers, and people tend to look at things the wrong way. This poll is a pretty good example. I think the most important thing is BALANCE. Finding components that compliment each other will yeild better results. You cant spend 600 bucks on a video card, pair it with a 700 mhz p3 and expect great results. your better off getting a 300 dollar video card and buying a faster processor.

 

[bigshot]

Here is a good comparison to try...

Take a set of Radio Shack speakers that retail for $100 a side, and compare them to JBLs that retail for $1,000 a side. Use the best source and amp possible.

Then take a low end Sony CD player, like the SCD-CE595 which costs around $100 and compare it to a Dennon that retails for a little over a grand. Play both of them back through the best speakers and amp you can find.

I'll bet you a dozen doughnuts and a sixer of Old Milwaukee that there's more of a difference in the first test than there is in the second.

See ya
Steve