[sonq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vic Trola /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most of the chip and circuit design we encounter sound right somewhere between 48 and 96 kHz. 192, 176, never sounds right to me, but its me, remember. Vic.

Me too. I found that the higher upsampling freq I go, the smoother it sounds but things becomes bland and there's also diminished texture and immediacy - more refined in treble region but ironically less involving. However, I do find upsampling great for poorer recordings.

 

[sonq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've never found a cdplayer that sounded the same, different brands, higher end. If everything sounds the same, i would seriously look into your amp or headphone. They don't use the same analogue stage, unless they use the same resistors, opamps, caps etc, nothing IS the same, especially caps have their own signature, the best have almost no signature! So, yes, i still stand behind my quote that the analogue section is the most important. Especially output stage and powerstages.

I think the differences between CDPs are not as immediate as between speakers, so some may dismiss the level of differences in a quick casual audition.

I've sat through comparisons between Primare CD31 to Ayre CX7e in sloppily setup highend system, with novice audiophiles declaring there's negligible if any difference. So I think it depends on the listener's level of exposure to good audio references and the system's resolution too.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonq /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think the differences between CDPs are not as immediate as between speakers, so some may dismiss the level of differences in a quick casual audition. I've sat through comparisons between Primare CD31 to Ayre CX7e in sloppily setup highend system, with novice audiophiles declaring there's negligible if any difference. So I think it depends on the listener's level of exposure to good audio references and the system's resolution too.

I have to say that i have a highly resolving system and what i heard is;

more body-less body
more colour-less colour
more dynamic-less dynamic
more digital sounding-less digital sounding.
more space in between voices-instruments-less space
etc.

If you sit down for a while with different players and have a good listen, you'll hear the differences and notice their own signatures. Even if some use the same chips. means output stage is most important.

I agree that probably the least differences are in the digital domain, but differences nevertheless.

 

[Akabeth]

This is rather troublesome...

Is the only possible way to know if a source can produce a high-end sound is to actually audition it... with the rest of the setup?

Does stat sheet reveals 'even more less' of the equipment in the source department compared to the amp department?
I am a bit confused

 

[bigshot]

Tube equipment is going to sound different because tubes are inherently inaccurate compared to solid state.

See ya
Steve

 

[Pars]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tube equipment is going to sound different because tubes are inherently inaccurate compared to solid state. See ya Steve

Ahhh... that explains how those (tube) Tektronix scopes helped put men on the moon, etc.

Actually, tubes can be quite linear.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pars /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ahhh... that explains how those (tube) Tektronix scopes helped put men on the moon, etc. Actually, tubes can be quite linear.

That is a foolish statement. Tubes were all they had back then.

 

[Pars]

Quote:

Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is a foolish statement. Tubes were all they had back then.

Really?

A very linear transistor (2SC2240) and a pretty linear tube (6922 or E88CC).

Nice flat gain ranges in both.

 

[DocHamm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is an interesting page (complete with samples) where the author tries to simulate the distortion effects of jitter at different levels of audibility. It isnt as good as the Ashihara paper in that it is a facsimile of jitter rather than generated jitter but it gives an idea of what artifacts at different levels sound like when embedded in even quiet music passages and how strong the masking effect is. Artifact Audibility Comparisons Jitter in commercal playback units is 40 - 50 db quieter than the quietest sample hosted, with one notable exception. How far down are the sidebands for really big jitter numbers Computer Audio Asylum - Jitter Research, Analysis & Measurement - cics - March 24, 2008 at 12:55:55 - well ignoring the text and just looking at the graphs you get an idea of how big jitter sideands for 7ns peak-peak jitter are.

Quite informative. One test I did was to listen to each of the samples (multiple times) through different speakers and headphones. It might just be "my" ears, but I could hear the noise considerably better with speakers rather than headphones. That surprised me as I actually expected the reverse. Perhaps I need to reconsider my "analytical" listening setup.

 

[yashicaman]

The sound of the player is what counts, not specs. Read reviews and then go listen. Make up a short list re: your budget. The more you pay does not mean the more you get and there is a point of diminishing returns. I spent hours (actually days, weeks, months) deciding on what cd player to get (Phillips LHH1000 separate dac and transport--60 lbs of fun with a remote the size of a hardback novel).

When you hear a player that sounds good to you, buy it. Simple, isn't it.

Happy listening.