Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (
More info?)
B&D wrote:
> On 1/10/05 8:24 PM, in article crv9t601mmf@news1.newsguy.com, "Chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>> B&D wrote:
>>> On 1/9/05 3:42 PM, in article crs5060282@news1.newsguy.com, "chung"
>>> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's possible that a $5K CD player may sound different than a $500 one.
>>>> However, the difference may be due to the $5K one being intentionally
>>>> (or sometimes unintentionally, too) made to be less accurate. Like using
>>>> tubes, for instance
>>>
>>> Or, perhaps, that the power supply design was done more carefully, the
>>> transport selected was capable of resisting jitter and the overall design
>>> was made to prevent digital timing errors.
>>
>> You believe doing those things right cost $4.5K more?
>>
>> The transports used in the $$$ players are just the same as those used
>> in players that cost an order of magnitude less. (In some cases grossly
>> inferior transports were used, like the belt-driven ones.) The DAC chips
>> used are often the same or even older than the ones used in the
>> mass-manufactured players. Not that you are likely to hear the
>> differences resulting from different DAC's used.
>
> Instead of talking in theory - can you give me a concrete example of a $5k
> player that sounds "as good" as a $500 one?
What's wrong with talking in theory? Do you have any objections to the
theory stated? Besides, saying that boutique companies use the same
transports or DAC's as mass manufacturers is not stating a theory at
all. It is fact. Very, very few boutique shops have the technical
prowess to develop a DAC or a transport.
What I gave you was an example or two of an expensive CD player that
most likely does not sound as accurate as the $500 one. We were all
trying to answer the OP's question, which was whether a $5K player
sounds different than a $500 one.
>
> My detailed experience has been with less lofty CDP's - my personal
> experience between the NAD C541i, Arcam CD192, Bel Canto DAC-2, Sony SCD-2
> and Ayre CX-7 showed good differences and gradations in price.
>
> Again, to *which* $5k player are you referring?
I did not refer to any in particular.
Was your personal experience based on level-matched blind testing?
>>
>>
>>> Also use of digital techniques
>>> to extract more information, lower the effective noise floor, a DAC that is
>>> state of the art, as well as a well thought out analog stage with the
>>> compromises made to be minor.
>>
>> Do you seriously believe that the boutique makers can do a better job?
>
> A good engineer who is aiming for good sound reproduction will do a better
> job than an engineer who is engineering for minimal performance for less
> than $10.
And you don't think the engineers at Sony or Denon are aiming for good
sound reproduciton?
And you think that the engineers at Sony or Denon are working for less
than $10?
>
>> We are talking about a CD player, and companies like Sony have been
>> making CD players for 20 years. Don't you think they understand how to
>> design CD players so that the errors are inaudible?
>
> Sure they do - but you have to ask if they choose to do that if it will mean
> something costs $0.01 more than their price target. Sony and the other big
> guys know perfectly well how to design SOTA stuff - they don't always, and
> usually because of cost.
And you still believe that the SOTA CD player designed by Sony will
necessarily cost $5K, or at least >$500? Do you have any prove that Sony
will not put in a better part if it costs 1 cent more?
SOTA simply means the errors are inaudible. There is no actual benefit
in over designing. For example, there is no sense in designing an output
stage with 20V swing, or one that has 0.0001% distortion.
>
>>I read that some
>> high-end CD players even eliminate the anti-alias filters. That should
>> tell you a lot about the design talent you find in some high-end labels.
>
> That particular (misguided) technique was developed in Japan with full
> knowledge of what they were doing. It does not indicate anything but the
> desire to expeiment and see what will happen.
But you don't see that kind of "experimenting" from Sony or Denon. Why
even experiment, since theory can tell you why you need the anti-alias
filter? And who is paying for the experimenting?
>
>> You are simply repeating the myths perpetuated by high-end marketing.
>
> Actually if the big guys were interested in building truly high end gear
> (performance high end) they would do so, and the price tags would reflect,
> though be a relative bargain. Sony does this every so often, and their $500
> SE SACD/CD players will blow just about anything out of the water until you
> get to about $1500-2000.
So (a) which $5K player is better than the $500 Sony, (b) can the
measurements prove that, and (c) can you tell them apart in a
level-matched blind listening test?
>Their high end SACD player (first the SCD-1, and
> now the 3000ES) for $3k just about kills anything else out there, especially
> on SACD. The Intergra, Marantz and others are showing the value the
> dedicated R&D departments and manufacturing prowess of these organizations
> have to bring to the table.
>
> What the "high end marketing press" has got right is that much of the mass
> market is more interested in presenting something for "cheap" and less
> because it performs well.
As we say in engineering, good enough is perfect! Only the high-end
marketing press will tell you that a good CD player has to cost $$$!
> I have found this to be true, and hate spending a
> lot of money, but will spend it if there is value. When the mass marketers
> put their mind to it, they do really well and can offer things much cheaper
> than the boutiques. *If* they do this is another story.
>
> I hear a lot of mass marketing saying that MP3's are "CD Quality" - but
> listening the the CDP's by some of them, it might just be true.
Facebook
Twitter