Source units affect sound?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>And my opinion is that both those players are probably good
>enough, barring defects, that they would be audibly indistinguishable,
>whatever you think you may have heard.

I agree, and I HAVE made the comparisons.
Steve Grauman

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>That's because you're comparing the DAC in your receiver with the DAC in
>your receiver. Indeed, those different players could conceivably have
>the same transport mechanism.

If you're buying CD players costing thousands of dollars, it's a given you've
got the high end processor, complete with good DACs, to match. Chances are,
these players will be connected optically, and the processor's DAC will be
doing the conversion work. Nonetheless, I've also done some experimenting where
the players were connected via analog connection, and guess what? There was no
sonically distinguishable difference. People who "swore" they could hear a
difference - when they knew which player was being used - suddenly couldn't
identify one from another or even be positive that we had changed CD players
when they were forced to look away from the players for listening tests.
Steve Grauman

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:crvdbg01qt6@news1.newsguy.com...
> Chung wrote:
>> B&D wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
> Then there's the power supply. I can understand why a robust power
> supply is essential to a good amp, but I have a CD player that runs on
> two AA batteries. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but if you can run
> a player *at all* on that kind of juice, it's highly unlikely that you
> need your own generating station to get distortion-free sound out of a
> CD player.
>
> bob

It's not the amount of power, it's how clean the power is. Especially noise
can come from inferior designs and components. Another consideration would
be crosstalk, especially when it's not linear over frequency. The best
design would use separate supplies for each audio channel, separate supplies
for analog and digital stages, high grade components and well designed
filters for each stage of the audio processing. If it would make an audible
difference is probably subject for another discussion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 1/12/05 7:51 PM, in article cs4gm00adp@news1.newsguy.com, "Chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>> 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? [snip]

Because there is nothing very concrete to talk about - all the "examples"
are theoretical constructs, and everyone spends all of their time tiling at
windmills and knocking down strawmen.

If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as a
$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hasenpfeffer wrote:
> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:crvdbg01qt6@news1.newsguy.com...
>> Chung wrote:
>>> B&D wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>>
>> Then there's the power supply. I can understand why a robust power
>> supply is essential to a good amp, but I have a CD player that runs on
>> two AA batteries. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but if you can run
>> a player *at all* on that kind of juice, it's highly unlikely that you
>> need your own generating station to get distortion-free sound out of a
>> CD player.
>>
>> bob
>
> It's not the amount of power, it's how clean the power is.

But it is the amount of power. It is much easier filtering power supply
noise if the current requirements are low. It is much harder providing a
clean power supply that delivers a large amount of current.

It is actually quite straightforward to design a clean supply for the CD
player, since the power requirements are so modest.

> Especially noise
> can come from inferior designs and components. Another consideration would
> be crosstalk, especially when it's not linear over frequency. The best
> design would use separate supplies for each audio channel, separate supplies
> for analog and digital stages, high grade components and well designed
> filters for each stage of the audio processing. If it would make an audible
> difference is probably subject for another discussion.

In the modern players, more and more is done in the digital domain. The
analog tasks left are easily implemented, at low cost.

Now, looking at the infamous Wavac tubed amp's measurements, one has to
wonder whether the audiophile really can discriminate excellent supply
regulation from a very poor one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<<The mistake is not using the CD Player's DAC and Analog stages>>

As I mentioned, a second bacth of comparisons used analog connection to
verify that the different DACs used in different CD players would not
make a difference. In those tests, no audible differences occured from
player to player. On four or five occasions, we would tell the "blind"
person doing the listening tests that we were switching from player A
to player B, while in fact we would simply wait for 35-40 seconds and
then re-start player A. On 2 or 3 occasions, the listener claimed to
hear a solid difference between the cheaper player A and more expensive
player B, however WE HAD NEVER SWITCHED PLAYERS. This tells me that my
assumptions are correct.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I like Klipsch's top-spec RF-7 towers quite a bit, enough to have
bought a pair, however I also love the much more expensive equipment
from Dynaudio and I'm even a bit partial to a few other speakers. Using
the Klipsch RF-7s should not have effected our sound tests.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<<The analog sections and power supply design
often "make or break" the resulting sound.>>

I did secondary comparisons with analog outputs, which I have posted
about here. The power supply claims are silly, IMO, because none of the
units I've listened to, starting at $125 or so, had power supplies
introducing enough distortion to be audible. People will sit back and
claim that having more "robust" power supplies in isolated mounting
points, etc... will make cleaner sound. I'm sorry to break it to those
people that none of this units produce distortion that the human ear
could detect. Secondly, I found the same with DACs. The Denon AVR-5803
is a better reciver than my 2803 is, but any differences in sound
quality between mine and the 5803 are because of the 5803s more
powerful amps. The DACs in these units cannot make any audible
difference. Period.

 

[ban]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hasenpfeffer wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Then there's the power supply. I can understand why a robust power
>> supply is essential to a good amp, but I have a CD player that runs
>> on two AA batteries. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but if you
>> can run a player *at all* on that kind of juice, it's highly
>> unlikely that you need your own generating station to get
>> distortion-free sound out of a CD player.
>>
>> bob
>
> It's not the amount of power, it's how clean the power is. Especially
> noise can come from inferior designs and components. Another
> consideration would be crosstalk, especially when it's not linear
> over frequency. The best design would use separate supplies for each
> audio channel, separate supplies for analog and digital stages, high
> grade components and well designed filters for each stage of the
> audio processing. If it would make an audible difference is probably
> subject for another discussion.

If you analyze a "high-end" player for 5000$, you will find exactly the same
transport, ICs and even PCBs inside of a 500$ or 100$ player. The money is
spend on the enclosure with thick machined front plates, knobs etc. All
those components do not have any impact on the sound, but please the eye
only. It looks like a Ferrari with a regular Taurus engine inside, not worth
the investment, exept if you need the gear to impress the friends. And it
won't even do that if your friends are engineers. :-((
Often the regular Sony sounds even better, because the guys know their
subject unlike some high-end "designers", that are not even engineers. I
have seen more design flaws in expensive gear than in cheap one.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:
> On 1/11/05 7:47 PM, in article cs1s2d01tfj@news3.newsguy.com,
> "OneActor1@aol.com" <OneActor1@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> All of them were connected to a Denon A/V
>> reciever via optical connection
>
> The mistake is not using the CD Player's DAC and Analog stages - if you use
> the optical output, you are only hearing the ability DAC in your receiver --
> it is no wonder you didn't hear any difference.

So at least we all agree that as transports, those players probably
sound the same, regardless of price differences? In other words, your
contention that the "digital transports are big adders to the final
product" really does not hold true in the context of the very expensive
CD players.

It seems like what the designers of expensive CD players should have
done is simply put an inexpensive mass-produced CD player inside as a
transport. That should save them a bundle of money and design effort, no?

>
> Klipsch is a great company, but there are speakers that are much better
> transducers out there, though credit to Klipsch, they all cost more $$$.
>

There is always that claim: if you don't hear the difference, your
equipment is not resolving enough...

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:

> On 1/10/05 8:52 PM, in article crvbgj01o6b@news1.newsguy.com, "Tat Chan"
> <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> B&D wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you look at a Benchmark DAC1 and put it up against an $20 Apex player, or
>>> even an iPod, you will find that it is leaps an bounds better at extracting
>>> detail and presenting it in a manner that is accurate and revealing of flaws
>>> in the recording. That is, in essence, what most Audiophiles are after -
>>> though many get caught up in gear that may not live up to that standard for
>>> a lot of money.
>>
>> "Accurate and revealing of flaws in the recording". I am afraid that
>> only true believers in high-fidelity would like that kind of sound.
>
> If you can't hear the flaws in a recording, you can't hear how good it
> sounds when they get the recording right. And iPod does a great deal to
> whitewash the details - and it sounds great with bad recordings. Good to
> have one around if you have some CD's rendered unlistenable due to the awful
> mastering.
>
> If you don't want the unvarnished truth of the recording - I can't say you
> are very much interested in high end. Even if you were to ask 'phile and
> TAS editors (minor demons on this NG) their opinion - would they rather have
> accurate and revealing or warm and mushy and inaccurate - they would
> probably say that accuracy was first.

That certainly is not true among the more subjectivist audiophile
posters on this newsgroup. They do not value objective accuracy much.
They want "accuracy" to their "memories of live music", whatever that
means. I don't think that is the same as accuracy to the recording at all.

You remember that Wavac amp review, right?

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:
> On 1/12/05 7:51 PM, in article cs4gm00adp@news1.newsguy.com, "Chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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? [snip]
>
> Because there is nothing very concrete to talk about - all the "examples"
> are theoretical constructs, and everyone spends all of their time tiling at
> windmills and knocking down strawmen.
>
> If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as a
> $500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

If you had not snipped the rest of my response, you would have noted
that I was not referring to any $5K player in general. And we were all
trying to answer the question whether the $5K players will sound better
than the $500 ones.

But if you insist on me supplying an example of a $5K player that sounds
very good, I would give you this: the Sony SCD-1. I listened to it
carefully when it first came out (around 1999, I believe), and the price
back then was about $5K, list. While I really admired the industrial
design of the product, listening to CD's alone I could not tell it apart
from another Sony ES player that sold for less than $1K at that time. I
have also later compared that Sony ES player against newer DVD player
that cost less than $500, and I could not tell the units apart.

And there are plenty to talk about without giving concrete examples. For
instance, you know that there will be serious consequences without the
anti-alias filters, based on theory.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<OneActor1@aol.com> wrote in message news:cs76gn02ulh@news1.newsguy.com...
> <<The analog sections and power supply design
> often "make or break" the resulting sound.>>
>
> I did secondary comparisons with analog outputs, which I have posted
> about here. The power supply claims are silly, IMO, because none of the
> units I've listened to, starting at $125 or so, had power supplies
> introducing enough distortion to be audible. People will sit back and
> claim that having more "robust" power supplies in isolated mounting
> points, etc... will make cleaner sound. I'm sorry to break it to those
> people that none of this units produce distortion that the human ear
> could detect. Secondly, I found the same with DACs. The Denon AVR-5803
> is a better reciver than my 2803 is, but any differences in sound
> quality between mine and the 5803 are because of the 5803s more
> powerful amps. The DACs in these units cannot make any audible
> difference. Period.

I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass. It is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound and
mid-fi.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 14 Jan 2005 00:31:28 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>If you cannot give an example of a $5k player that sounds "as good" as a
>$500 one, then it would be good to just say so.

Try the Meridian 800 series. Many would regard it as sheer engineering
overkill, but it *is* designed to be utterly linear, without any 'high
end' trickery to make it sound 'better' than mainstream units.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 14 Jan 2005 01:17:30 GMT, Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>It seems like what the designers of expensive CD players should have
>done is simply put an inexpensive mass-produced CD player inside as a
>transport. That should save them a bundle of money and design effort, no?

That *is* what most of them do. Inside the >$10,000 Mark Levinson
'Reference' transport, you'll find exactly the same $50 Philips
transport mech and electronics package that goes in the 'CD jukebox'
in your local bar.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Richard]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 1/9/05 3:41 PM, in article crs4tb0268@news1.newsguy.com, "Harry Lavo"
><harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>>> Analog's a different ballgame. No turntable or tape deck, at any price,
>>> can deliver ruler-flat frequency response and inaudible levels of
>>> distortion to a preamp. So naturally it's possible (make that likely)
>>> that any two will sound different.
>>
>> Yeah, many more variables here requiring top-flight mechanical and materials
>> engineering as well as electrical performance. But once again, analog
>> design and build quality has much to do with final results...phono headamps
>> and preamps, tape recorder output stages, etc.
>
>Also keep in mind the power supply and digital transport are big adders to
>the final product.
>
>If a $20 CDP were truly SOTA, then there would be no need for outboard DAC's
>like the Benchmark DAC-1 which being a piece of pro gear for mastering
>music, has to be more accurate than an Apex $20 portable in order to justify
>its $900 price tag to the professionals!

You are making a fundamental mistake in simple logic here. First, I
have followed this thread and no one here has claimed that a $20 CDP
was "SOTA". Secondly, while the Benchmark DAC-1 is a fantastic
product, you imply that paying more money for a CDP will get you
Benchmark DAC-1 quality and I highly doubt that is the case! If I am
wrong, please tell me which units include the Benchmark DAC-1 in their
electronics.
More importantly, the responses to you here have been that the high
end CDPs in the ~$5000 range were not _audibly_ different than a good
quality ~$500 (not $20) player.
Furthermore I am confident that no one, including you, can actually
hear the difference in a good quality DAC and specs like the THD+N =
-106 dB (0.0005%) that the Benchmark DAC-1 provides! Of course specs
like this are highly desirable, even necessary, in a recording
environment where added distortions of any kind should be minimized.
Surely you do not imply that this kind of accuracy is necessary or
even audible in a home CDP? If so, then please provide evidence that
you or ANYONE can hear this difference.

Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:

> <OneActor1@aol.com> wrote in message news:cs76gn02ulh@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>><<The analog sections and power supply design
>>often "make or break" the resulting sound.>>
>>
>>I did secondary comparisons with analog outputs, which I have posted
>>about here. The power supply claims are silly, IMO, because none of the
>>units I've listened to, starting at $125 or so, had power supplies
>>introducing enough distortion to be audible. People will sit back and
>>claim that having more "robust" power supplies in isolated mounting
>>points, etc... will make cleaner sound. I'm sorry to break it to those
>>people that none of this units produce distortion that the human ear
>>could detect. Secondly, I found the same with DACs. The Denon AVR-5803
>>is a better reciver than my 2803 is, but any differences in sound
>>quality between mine and the 5803 are because of the 5803s more
>>powerful amps. The DACs in these units cannot make any audible
>>difference. Period.
>
>
> I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made up.
> But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct bearing,
> IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass. It is
> one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound and
> mid-fi.
>
>
So if I take my walmart CD player, rip out the AC power supply an run
the player off of batteries, that would or should increase its sonic
capability significantly?

CD

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<<I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made
up.
But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct
bearing,
IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass.
It is
one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound
and
mid-fi.>>

It's not me you're arguing with as much as it is the blind testing I've
been involved in. People are very "mental" about what they hear, or
what they *think* they hear. When you know you're comparing a $5,000 CD
player to a $125 player, and you're watching a sales person switch
between the two, it's very easy to "hear" a difference. When you're
forced to sit away from the players and can no longer see which one is
being played, your ability to "hear" those differences simply goes
away. I have very sensitive hearing, and enjoy high-end gear, I'm also
very picky about my sound. And if I could find any solid evidence that
a $5,000 player truly was better than a $125 player, I'd pay the $5k.
But the difference simply isn;t there OR it's not a difference that
your ears can pick up. You're partially fighting medical-science here,
there are simply things that the human ear CANNOT detect. If my dogs
ever learn to speak, I'll ask them if THEY heard a difference. =)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<<More importantly, the responses to you here have been that the high
end CDPs in the ~$5000 range were not _audibly_ different than a good
quality ~$500 (not $20) player.>>

This was/is certainly my feeling, and it has been since I started the
thread. I wasn't expecting or attempting to start an argument here, I
simply wanted to see how many "high end audio guys" were actually
buying into the idea of more money = *audible* increases in sound
quality. I'm constantly frustrated by reviewers who insist that when
going from CD player to CD player or from DAC/amp to DAC/amp they can
hear a difference in sound - that one is "warmer" that one is
"cleaner", etc...My own blind testing with self proclaimed "audiphiles"
has proven my inclination to be right...that it's all marketing jazz
and little more.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Codifus" <codifus@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cs9cgm019c8@news2.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
> > <OneActor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cs76gn02ulh@news1.newsguy.com...
> >
> >><<The analog sections and power supply design
> >>often "make or break" the resulting sound.>>
> >>
> >>I did secondary comparisons with analog outputs, which I have posted
> >>about here. The power supply claims are silly, IMO, because none of the
> >>units I've listened to, starting at $125 or so, had power supplies
> >>introducing enough distortion to be audible. People will sit back and
> >>claim that having more "robust" power supplies in isolated mounting
> >>points, etc... will make cleaner sound. I'm sorry to break it to those
> >>people that none of this units produce distortion that the human ear
> >>could detect. Secondly, I found the same with DACs. The Denon AVR-5803
> >>is a better reciver than my 2803 is, but any differences in sound
> >>quality between mine and the 5803 are because of the 5803s more
> >>powerful amps. The DACs in these units cannot make any audible
> >>difference. Period.
> >
> >
> > I guess there is no use in arguing with you...you have your mind made
up.
> > But the size/capacity/stability of the power supply has a direct
bearing,
> > IME, on how well the unit presents the lower midrange and upper bass.
It is
> > one of the distinguishing characteristics between true high end sound
and
> > mid-fi.
> >
> >
> So if I take my walmart CD player, rip out the AC power supply an run
> the player off of batteries, that would or should increase its sonic
> capability significantly?

Not necessarily. You also have to have enough current on instantaneous tap.
One of the knocks on battery powered gear is that sometimes they seem to be
slightly anemic in the dynamics department.