[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JxK /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...with almost all modern CD players, assuming there is nothing broken, there will be no audible difference.

That's simply not true. All of my current sources – all of them «modern» – sound significantly different, although not night-and-day different. (To my ears.) It's not so much about better or worse. DBT results of this kind make me doubt the validity of DBT. It would be highly unscientific to ban such doubts from a science forum. It would at least border on censorship. Imagine a science forum banning doubts on Darwin's evolution theory! Although I personally think it's an ingenious work and a good basis, it may be replaced by a better theory or completed by important components in the future.
.

 

[Shark_Jump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif DBT results of this kind make me doubt the validity of DBT. It would be highly unscientific to ban such doubts from a science forum. .

Jazz, what DBT results are you referring to?

I see no direct reference to a DBT in the referenced thread by JxK, only his subjective opinion, which without a DBT is just that, his opinion.

Surly the only thing JxK can do to prove his statement is with a DBT. The alternative is to have a subjective; "yes I can", "no you can't", type argument, which is childish, has no resolution and is of very little scientific merit.

And I don't think anone would say your sources all sound the same. Well not without a DBT anyway!

 

[JxK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's simply not true. All of my current sources – all of them «modern» – sound significantly different, although not night-and-day different. (To my ears.) It's not so much about better or worse. DBT results of this kind make me doubt the validity of DBT. It would be highly unscientific to ban such doubts from a science forum. It would at least boder on censorship. Imagine a science forum banning doubts on Darwin's evolution theory! Although I personally think it's an ingenious work and a good basis, it may be replaced by a better theory or completed by important components in the future. .

I'm sorry, but unless you did a ABX test, I simply don't believe those impressions to be valid. Remember, the information on a CD is simply a bunch of 1s and 0s. A player's job is to read that information, and output it to one's speakers. It is a relatively simple thing to compare that output to the original information on the CD (You're just using a computer to compare one set of 1s and 0s to another). This is something that is easily testable and demonstrable.

So, if a good CD payer is one which reads and outputs the information on a CD with a high degree of accuracy (which is all a CD player does) then we can call it a good CD player. And if you'll read my previous link, you will see that both budget and ultra expensive CD players get similar error rates when compared like this. Similar error rates equate to a similar (read: no audible difference) performance.

Again, all this is measurable and verifiable.

 

[Shark_Jump]

This is interesting.

In this instance who has the onus of conducting a DBT.

I actually think its on you JxK as you are the one making the claim. eg. all CD Players sound the same.

Its a big call, I think I would put my money with Jazz if he DBT'd his equipment on this particular claim. (Not that I'm a gambler or anything)

Ed <Or it could be a mind trick by JxK to try to get Jazz to do a DBT!

>

 

[JxK]

But that's the entire point, you don't even need to conduct a DBT test in the first place. So long as the output of a CD player closely matches the CD itself, they will sound the same. It really isn't any more complex than basic arithmetic.

Comparison of error rates in some CD players
^And fortunately someone did the test for me, so I don't actually have to spend the money.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is interesting. In this instance who has the onus of conducting a DBT. I actually think its on you JxK as you are the one making the claim. eg. all CD Players sound the same.

You can find some interesting DBTs on digital kit at


Matrix-Hifi

including..

Oracle CD player vs Pioneer DVD player
Matrix-Hifi: Pruebas Ciegas --> Prueba de CD Pioneer multiformato contra CD Oracle

 

[JohnFerrier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can find some interesting DBTs on digital kit at Matrix-Hifi including.. Oracle CD player vs Pioneer DVD player Matrix-Hifi: Pruebas Ciegas --> Prueba de CD Pioneer multiformato contra CD Oracle

Thanks, but what does "Una vez mas se demuestra mediante prueba ciega que entre un lector de “gama baja” (200 eur) y uno de “gama alta” (12000 eur) NO SE ENCONTRARON DIFERENCIAS." say in English?

 

[xnor]

Google translates "NO SE ENCONTRARON DIFERENCIAS" as "No differences were found".

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks, but what does "Una vez mas se demuestra mediante prueba ciega que entre un lector de “gama baja” (200 eur) y uno de “gama alta” (12000 eur) NO SE ENCONTRARON DIFERENCIAS." say in English?

a crappy but workable translation

One more time it is demonstrated through blind test that between a player of low end (200 euro) and one of high end (12000 euro) no differences were encountered

 

[xnor]

We should get a thread started gathering all kinds of such comparisons.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's simply not true. All of my current sources – all of them «modern» – sound significantly different, although not night-and-day different. (To my ears.)

That's because the article JxK linked to was testing CD players as CD transports. It would be more accurate to say all CD players acting as transports sound the same.

A CD player acting as a CD player and outputting an analog signal is a whole different beast.

 

[JohnFerrier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor /img/forum/go_quote.gif We should get a thread started gathering all kinds of such comparisons.

Posted before . . . .

Wikipedia --> Bob Carver

"Carver caused a stir in the industry in the mid-1980s when he challenged two high-end audio magazines to give him any audio amplifier at any price, and he’d duplicate its sound in one of his lower cost (and usually much more powerful) designs. Two magazines took him up on the challenge.

First, The Audio Critic chose a Mark Levinson ML-2 which Bob acoustically copied (transfer function duplication) and sold as his M1.5t amplifier (the “t” stood for transfer function modified).

In 1985, Stereophile magazine challenged Bob to copy a Conrad-Johnson Premier Five (the make and model was not named in the challenge but revealed later) amplifier at their offices in New Mexico within 48 hours. The Conrad Johnson amplifier was one of the most highly regarded amplifiers of its day, costing in excess of $12,000.

Of note that in both cases, the challenging amplifier could only be treated as a “black box” and could not even have its lid removed. Nevertheless, Bob, using null difference testing, successfully copied the sound of the target amplifier and won the challenge. The Stereophile employees failed to pass a single blind test with their own equipment, and in their own listening room. He marketed “t” versions of his amplifiers incorporating the sound of the Mark Levinson and Conrad Johnson designs which caused him some criticism by those who failed to understand the true nature of the challenge — that it was possible to duplicate an audio amplifier's sound in two completely dissimilar designs. In light of this criticism, Bob Carver went on to design the Silver Seven, the most expensive and esoteric conventional amplifier up to that time and duplicated its sound in his M 4.0t and later models which sold for some 1/40th the price (around $600-$1500)."

Mark Levinson ML-3, mono-block

Premier 5 mono-blocks: $12,000

Carver M1.5t stereo amplifier
~$1,000

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif A CD player acting as a CD player and outputting an analog signal is a whole different beast.

Perhaps, sometimes, but not always, and without some form of pretty rigorous and wholly unbiased comparison we just don't know !

The only thing I can unequivocably say about my CD player and transport/DAC combos is that the transport/DAC combo is a measured 0.7db hotter, which always makes it seem better than the CD player stand-alone, but when I adjust the volumes I can no longer tell them apart for the given two players and me as a subject...

The most frequent difference between any two CD players is the output level which can be anything from 1.0V to 2.5V a difference that is quite detectable even unsighted and (almost always) results in the louder being perceived as better.

 

[Lazarus Short]

I have a counter proposal for the OP - rename this sub-forum to:

"Sound" Science

Sound "Science"

or

"Sound Science"

I see little here that is either sound or science, and maybe that is why I post in this sub-forum so seldom.

 

[JohnFerrier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a counter proposal for the OP - rename this sub-forum to: "Sound" Science Sound "Science" or "Sound Science" I see little here that is either sound or science, and maybe that is why I post in this sub-forum so seldom.

How about renaming it the sub-forum at head-fi where it's okay to discuss blind evaluations of audio components?