CD-player died, need advice
 

"mick" wrote in message
.uk...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:57:11 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:

I'm not in a
position to talk about now (though I have an opinion) but if anyone
thinks CD players sounded the same in 1990 they didn't listen to many.



Good comment, but the key point is do the more recent players sound any
*better* than those earlier ones, or just "different"?

**Excellent point. I keep an ancient Technics SLPS900 with me at all times.
Although it is 15 years old, it will easily perform as well as most modestly
priced (except the HK) players I've heard. It will embarass some quite
expensive machines. Technics just used quality DACs, coupled to the standard
5532 class OP amps.


I've always based my own views on the fact that you pay for every
flashing light, switch & gizmo so the chances are that, if you buy a
player with those things reduced to a minimum, you stand a better chance
of getting a good 'un with better reliability thrown in for good measure!

**Just forget about those stupid multi-disk machines. Carousels are OK
(just), but that's it.


For those who suggest using a DVD player - first you have to find one
with at least a track number display or use it with a TV. Very
distracting...

**Yeah, they're kind of annoying. And those cheap DVD players really do
sound extremely ordinary.

Trevor Wilson

CD-player died, need advice
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson"
wrote
in message

It's well over 200UKP. Why does it sound better than a
Sony £30 DVD player?

**Send me the schematic of your 30 Squid Sony and I'll
tell you. The HK has a number of significant technical
details which, IMO, make it sound better than all the
cheap players (and most of the expensive ones) I've ever
heard.

I thought that all named CDPs sound identical
nowadays?!

**I suggest you do some listening. You may well be in
for a shock.

If you listen with a salesman in attendance, or after
reading the usual ignorant hype in one of the high end
ragazines, or if you speak with a friend who has spent
stupid money on a high end optical disc player, then you
may well hear better sound from the more expensive
player. That's the major problem with sighted
evaluations - you never know why you perceive what you
may think you perceive.

All CD players sound the same.

Nope. The CD player function of the typical computer CD ROM drive (output
via an analog output) is probably so flawed that you will hear a difference.
Portable CD players, particularly the ones with non-defeatable electronic
skip protection, are often so flawed that you hear a difference. An old CD
player with dried-out electrolytic caps (I've got a Sony like this) can be
so flawed that it sounds different. Any CD player that doesn't track certain
kinds of CD well, particularly CD-Rs, will sound different.

CD players have analog outputs that range from about 1 volt RMS to 2.5 volt
RMS, and unless you address that situation they sound different. If you
don't do a near-perfect job of time-synching the two players you compare
within about 10 milliseconds, they will sound different. If you listen to
one player and then move the disc over to another player and listen to it,
you will remember their sounds differently, because of the difference in
time since you heard them, and they will sound different to you. The first
few generations of CD players had DACs that had considerably different
frequency response, and they sounded different from each other.

Is there any time scale to this?

Hmm, for the last 10 years, any reasonably competent CD player would have
been very difficult or impossible to distinguish from any other or the
ideal, provided you did a far more careful comparison than just about any
audiophile ever did.

I have not compared CD players since around 1990.

I have done carefully-done comparisons from time to time up until just
recently, and the two long paragraphs above catalog just about every
difference I have ever heard.

At that time most CD players to my ears sounded pretty
grim and the Meridian 207 and 208 were the only players I
had the opportunity to hear that did the job at all well.

Compared to vinyl or analog tape, just about any reasonable CD player, even
either of the two first-generation models, did an absolutely stunning job of
reproducing music.

If the popular wisdom here is that even then they sounded
the same, then I need to find a new group to read.

I can virtually guarantee you that unless you are among the few dozen people
in the world who have done a technically near-perfect job of comparing CD
players, every CD player you've heard has sounded different.

If you do that technically perfect job of comparing CD players that are good
modern optical players, just about all of them will sound alike. Thing is,
you might easily find a $39.95 DVD player in your collection of modern
competent optical players that sound alike. Certainly, if you competently
compare just about any 2 ca. $100 optical players, or any of them with a
good high-end player $1,000, they will sound very much alike.

The genesis of CD player sound quality is that while each of the two first
CD players on the market could be distinguished from each other in a really
sensitive listening test. But, either sounded very good by any reasonble
standard, if just a tiny bit flawed. In the second generation, there were
several pairs of players that could not be distinguished from each other or
the ideal, they were that good.

By the time we did the CD player listening ABX tests that were published in
Stereo Review in the late 80s, I recall that only the legacy first
generation player could be distinguished from the rest. But, they were a
pretty august group - no utter cheapies in the list.

CD-player died, need advice
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
[snip]

All CD players sound the same. Is there any time scale to this? I have
not compared CD players since around 1990. At that time most CD
players to my ears sounded pretty grim and the Meridian 207 and 208
were the only players I had the opportunity to hear that did the job
at all well. If the popular wisdom here is that even then they sounded
the same, then I need to find a new group to read.

**I, for one, know full well, that all CD players were/are not created
equal. Far from it. In those days, the Meridians were, indeed, the best
available.

You can certainly find measurable differences between different players in
various cases. The difficulty is assessing to what extent, and in what
circumstances, this may have an audible effect, and if this is large
enough
to matter at all. For me, using a Meridian 263 or 563 DAC was a 'fire and
forget' choice. The idea being that I could have some confidence that it
would work well. However this does not mean there aren't 'better' (in some
way) choices, or cheaper lesser-named ones that would have provided the
same results when listening. In general, with the DACs/players I have,
and with some specific exceptions[1], I don't think I could tell which
one
I am using from the sounds produced.

Above said, I have more recently found potential reasons that tempt me to
move away from the above DACs, but as yet not serious enough to prompt any
action on my part as they seem to work find in practice.

**I recently had a conversation with a client from Melbourne (I am in
Sydney, but have sold him items in the past). His first words to me we
"You *******." He had won an auction for an upmarket, late model Meridian CD
player and was waiting for delivery. Impatient, he spotted a post I made
some months ago I made about the HK HD970. Since they are so cheap, he
purchased one and was immediately delighted. The Meridian finally arrived
(total cost AUS$2,000.00). He was stunned at how the HK sounded better
than the Meridian. The Meridian is going back onto eBay.

It would be easy to imagine that anyone throwing so much money at a player
would be convinced that it would automatically sound better than a much
cheaper machine.

Trevor Wilson

CD-player died, need advice
 

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Martin "Schöön"" wrote in message
...
Gentlemen,

I replaced the driving belt of my trusted old Thorens TD166
this week and today I find the CD-player has become so
upset by this it refuses to play or even acknowledge the
existence of the CDs I feed it.

The CD player is a Cambridge Audio thing (everything
important inside is labeled Sony) about five years
old (the Thorens is 25 years old).

So, even though the Thorens 166 works just fine and
I have a number of LPs to play I am in the market
for a CD-player.

I don't care much for fancy brand names and exotic
design but I want good sound reproduction. (and
reliability).

Any recommendations?
Second hand? (New models are not always better)
DVD-players?
**Forget second hand, unless you are prepared to throw a new laser in a
decent exotic machine. IMO, the best value around today is the Harman
Kardon HD970. Brilliant machine for not too much cash. It'll even play
MP3s.

Trevor Wilson
It's well over 200UKP. Why does it sound better than a Sony £30 DVD
player?
**Send me the schematic of your 30 Squid Sony and I'll tell you. The HK
has a number of significant technical details which, IMO, make it sound
better than all the cheap players (and most of the expensive ones) I've
ever heard.

Can't help with that I'm afraid. The manual just has a list of specs,
rather than components (it's a xd-ax10, badged Aiwa). From what I gather
(from this NG):

**Then, without a schematic, it is impossible for me to highlight what
problems the Sony may have (or not). Specs do not tell the whole story.


I would agree - many wouldn't, I suspect ('if it can't be measured it
either doesn't exist or it doesn't matter'). And then there's the issue
of the accuracy of manufacturer's data.

1. DACs are a 'done deal', and have been for about 10 years - differences
such as they are are inaudible;

**Not IME.


OK - I don't know.

2. Transports are transports - it's not possible to have an audio
signature, they work or they don't;

**I'd be inclined to agree with that.


OK - just to reaffirm, my statement was based on what I've read on this NG.

3. Analogue amplification has to be mightily wrong to create difference,
and it's so simple and cheap it has no effect in practice.

**Wrong. There are a raft of issues with analogue stages in CD players,
where mistakes are often made. Here's a few things I've found wrong with
cheap players:


Again - this has been pretty well covered here, and my statement was a
summary of what I've read.

* Cheap, crappy OP amps used in the critical output stages. I've even found
4558-class OP amps used. These date from the late 1970s and are vastly
inferior to the 5532/4 - LM833 OP amps used in the first generation Sony and
Philips machines. The cost difference is minor.
* High value series resistance in the output of the analogue section.
* Poorly implemented muting transistors, which short output to ground. A
relay is a much better idea. And costs marginally more.
* The use of LM78XX and LM79XX regulators, instead of the vastly superior
LM317/LM337 regulators. Again, the cost difference in in the order of a few
cents.
* Poor quality filters (not so much of a problem nowadays).


All sounds reasonable to me - except, I'm afraid, I couldn't possibly
*begin* to appraise any of it!

OTOH, if I believe what I read in the mags, differences are either
presented as obvious, or technically valid (an article on jitter, for
example, laid claims IIRC). Which leads me to ...

I thought that all named CDPs sound identical nowadays?!
**I suggest you do some listening. You may well be in for a shock.

I have. I *think* I can detect difference, but I've never been able to
reliably distinguish between digital sources using the same material, and
I certainly can't state whether one's better than t'other.

**You've compared the HK to a cheapo Sony?


No - I gave up when I couldn't reliably distinguish between a Marantz KI
500UKP CDP and the cheap DVD player. I've had several CDPs over the
years, although I was a late adopter - 1998.

Your point is, I suppose, that I should listen to the HK if i'm at all
serious about CD sound quality. Well, I don't think I'm that bothered at
the moment, although I'll certainly bear your points in mind should my
interest become reawakened. FYI I use this in my main system ATM:

http://www.superfi.co.uk/index.cfm/p...roduct_ID/2359

but as I say, I rarely play CDs, and it goes without saying I couldn't
hear any difference between that and the AX10 ;-)

To this end, most of my digital music is on HD/lossless compression, and
plays through a Mac Mini. I've given away about 500 CDs, and kept about
200 for some reason, probably sentimental. I use lossless compression
because I can hear the effects of mp3 compression - not always
objectionable, although I find the sound a little 'thin'.

The conclusion I've come to - that if there is a difference it doesn't
matter - could be a result of mid-fi speakers (Castle and Dynaudio), room
acoustics, my hearing or some psychological factor. Or that CDPs (and
indeed digital playback) are sufficiently indistinguishable.

FWIW, if I did find the HK sounded better, my guess would be that
something was going on in the analogue amplification stage.

**That would be a reasonable assumption. HK have clearly put a lot of effort
into building a quality analogue section in that machine.


OK.

Rob

CD-player died, need advice
 

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote

Doing a decent job of comparing optical disc players is a often lot of
work - the big problem is getting and keeping the discs in synch. I've
done it, and the results were amazingly small audible differences, some
of
which were found to be imaginary when the statistical analysis was
complete.

**Agreed. And some differences were audible, when used with suitably high
quality speakers. In some cases, the differences are not subtle, though
these instances are rare. In the case of the HK, I've compared with some
obscenely high priced players and some very cheap players. In most
instances, the HK has won hands-down.

WON by what criteria though ?

**Measurements and sound quality. Is there any other criteria of relevance?

Sound quality as adjudged by whom and/or what measure ?

Graham

CD-player died, need advice
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:24:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

All CD players sound the same.

Nope. The CD player function of the typical computer CD ROM drive (output
via an analog output) is probably so flawed that you will hear a difference.

You're counting the mini-jack output on the front of a computer CD
drive as a "CD player" in the context of this thread? Rather a straw
man, I'd say :-)

CD-player died, need advice
 

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote

Doing a decent job of comparing optical disc players
is a often lot of work - the big problem is getting
and keeping the discs in synch. I've done it, and
the results were amazingly small audible differences,
some of
which were found to be imaginary when the statistical
analysis was complete.

**Agreed. And some differences were audible, when used
with suitably high quality speakers. In some cases,
the differences are not subtle, though these instances
are rare. In the case of the HK, I've compared with
some obscenely high priced players and some very cheap
players. In most instances, the HK has won hands-down.

WON by what criteria though ?

**Measurements and sound quality. Is there any other
criteria of relevance?

Sound quality as adjudged by whom and/or what measure ?

The ultimate measure of sound quality for reproduction equipment is the
origional.

In the case of a CD player, you compare the signal at its output terminals
to the signal that was used to burn the CD being played.

CD-player died, need advice
 

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in
message
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:24:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

All CD players sound the same.

Nope. The CD player function of the typical computer CD
ROM drive (output via an analog output) is probably so
flawed that you will hear a difference.

You're counting the mini-jack output on the front of a
computer CD drive as a "CD player" in the context of this
thread? Rather a straw man, I'd say :-)

What about the other dozen or so items I listed, or are you going to try to
make out that this was all I said?

CD-player died, need advice
 

"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message

**That would be a reasonable assumption. HK have clearly
put a lot of effort into building a quality analogue
section in that machine.

An ultimate quality analog section for a CD player - a 5532, a few penny
resistors, and a couple of caps.

CD-player died, need advice
 

I've just announced the details of a new webpage in another thread. However
anyone interested in one way in which players may vary significantly might
find

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/OverTheTop/OTT.html

interesting. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html