Players? I am tossing around the idea of replacing my Pioneer Elite PD-65 with a Cambridge Audio 840c, but only if their is a CLEAR improvement. In the past I have had a difficult time hearing a noticeable difference in CD players from cheap ones to higher mid-fi ones.
but for the last decade and a half the price versus performance does not correlate most of the time. Now a days it is more about audio jewelry and it seems that some of the prices are derived arbitrarily and have no correlation to part costs or design sophistications. On the contrary, some of the highest cost components now a days are based on simple circuits from the 40's and 50's.
Now there is a straight shooter. I suspect that you and Stereophile founder J Gordon Holt would be in total agreement on the above.
During the 60's cars went all chrome and wings and hub caps too...
When performance reaches "good enough" for most customers then differentiation often migrates to other features such as aesthetics or nostalgia or exclusivity (high price - limited availability)
Any ordinary watch is good enough to tell the time these days - yet we have nostalgic old world designs such as Rolex that are still popular and aspired too. It is indeed just "jewelery". A Zenith mechanical chronometer movement is an impressive design wonder that achieves mechanically something that can be done for five bucks with electronics. To me that is part of the magic of vinyl. Digital kind of kills this magic dead. But I have no silly illusions that a Rolex in anyway outperforms the best digital watch (in terms of time keeping accuracy).
Over in the slim device forums someone asked the designer of the Transporter, Sean Adams, what he would have done if cost was no object. He said nothing, there's only so much money you can put into components.
Douglas_schroeder I understand what you are saying and there is no doubt that a well put together High end rig will show more than a well put together mid Fi rig.
Carlos, if you are referring primarily to the realm of low powered amps and high efficiency speakers, I would tend to agree with you.
Shadorne, the watch illustration is fallacious; in timekeeping there is one universal unit of measurement. In audio what is the equivalent universally agreed unit of measurement by which one can easily assess the merit of a component? "Good sound"? Not quite so easily defined as time.
Whereas the different topology of watches is essentially yielding an identical/measurable result, components' topology do not yield a universally agreed upon result. So, a "pricey" component to you could sound incredible to someone else, and well worth the money.
Wireless200, the Transporter is approx. 6 times the price of the Squeezebox. Both perform the same function, streaming audio, yet one is far more expensive. If it would yield superior results, it would, in fact, reinforce my point that typically higher priced gear is superior for assessment of attending components.
I second Douglas's claim. Differences between entry to mid price to SOA (pricey) digital are audiophile worlds apart. One is good two dimensional wall of gritty sound as compared to other approaching life like presence, three dimensionality and simply more believable- no excuses sound. The jewelry factor is icing on a cake. IMHE.
I agree. The key is figuring out where your cost/benefit ratio lies. My current system costs a lot more than I ever thought I'd spend. It's never point a point b; it's more point a point z with a lot of little steps up in price between. The biggest problem was better systems let you know what is good and one acquires a taste for it. "What was once a luxury is now essential."
Well, lets be realistic. I like the high dollar stuff as much as the next guy, but were in 2008. There are plenty cheap players out there offering great sound. I personally find benifits of a good player, but they are small. Often only adding a certain something that makes it more listenable. For instance when using my ps3 as a cd player through my anthem avm 30, the sound is good. definately enjoyable, thanks to the good dac's in my anthem 30. But when I use my reference Ayre cx-7, there is a SLIGHTLY tighter,smoother, sound that although small, makes all the difference for truely enjoying the music. Thats not to say I couldnt enjoy using the PS3 in the mix, but if you can afford to jump to better player, go for it.I believe in the jitter theory, but seriously its 2008, dont think for a second that technology hasnt made some great sounding cheap players. As I read in Sound and Vision magazine about three years ago, there are cheap cd players(under$500) out there offering near the theoretical limits of cd sound. I believe this to be true. If technology does anything, its improve, and also prices fall. I would be surpirsed if a $400 cd player built now, couldnt destroy anything from the 80's. We have dvd players today offering nearly every feature for $49.00, think about that. I'm a lover of high end audio, but I'm not going to be blinded by prices, and think great sound cant be obtained for a lot less money.
CD players all sound different just like other components, but most CD players these days are at least decent...I've never heard anything decent in good working order that sounded BAD on a decent system.
Generally, I think 20 or 24 bit oversampling is a good feature to look for in terms of getting a player that doesn't cut corners.
I certainly hear differences but they are small.As audiophiles we tend to really over exaggerate small changes. Also the rest of the system has to be up to the task.A top notch preamp is an absolute must as well as resolving speakers.A good preamp is more inportant in my experience then the source. In my experience the order of audible differences is as follows 1) the recording 2) speakers/room interface 3) preamp 4) source 5) amp 6)cables This has been my experience but others may disagree.
Budt, it's hard to disagree with your ranking. Maybe I've never owned a "bad" preamp, but I'd reverse source and preamp, but otherwise agree.
The amp can come up right behind the speakers, depending on the speakers. Some, like the DALIs and Vienna Acoustics, really need a lot of power and damping, elevating the importance of the amp.
Still, no matter how you stack the progression, there is a progression and people should focus their attention first toward the more significant. Cables bring out the last percentiles and seem important in that context, but I think it's foolish to start with cables, for instance, and build a system around them.
Shadorne, the watch illustration is fallacious; in timekeeping there is one universal unit of measurement. In audio what is the equivalent universally agreed unit of measurement by which one can easily assess the merit of a component?
That is just too easy. Although there are more than one universally accepted performance criteria the goal is accurate reproduction of the recorded material: Low distortion, high linearity, high Signal to Noise, large dynamic range, high SPL level capability, wide even dispersion.
It is all to obvious that some equipment is better than others in terms of pure performance.
What you are saying is akin to saying Rolex is a "Good Watch" - sure it is - but that is subjective and so is "Good Sound". Rolex is a poor performer as a time keeper (cost/performance) and so are many nostalgic methods of audio reproduction.
Shadorne, now you added the element/clarification of "...nostalgic methods of audio reproduction." Yes, if you are thinking along the lines of new gear made using older designs and charging an arm and leg, then we are largely in agreement.
Then, certainly, in general the "good sound" one is seeking would cost proportionately much more than one might find in components with different technology.
there is a basic problem in assessing the accuracy of stereo systems. there is no reference that is known.
if accuracy is the criterion, the goal is minimzation of signal loss. but what is the signal ? it is the recording.
how do you compare the sound of the recording to what comes out of the speakers ? the recording cannot be know, just as the sound of each component cannot be known. mathematically, it can be proven that each component and a recording constitute unknown variables.
doug schroeder, you commented on price/performance and used terms like mid fi and high end, without defining them. in fact assigning a component to either category is arbitrary and not scientifc. at best it is subjective.
also, there is no convincing evidence of correlation between price and performance. do you think you can tell the differnece between the cost of stereo system a and stereo system b, blindfolded ?
if you let me configure two stereo systems, i will wager that you will not be able to tell the difference between them, in a blindfold test, more than 50 percent of the time.
how do you compare the sound of the recording to what comes out of the speakers ?
You use a microphone at a nearfield position or in an anechoic chamber and compare the result to the input reference signal. You can measure all forms of distortion and noise this way.
forget about a blind test. the basic issues the terms high end and mid fi are used for marketing purposes. they are arbitray and subject to disagreement.
as to price and performance. you are entitled to your opinion but there is no hard evidence that spending more on components produces "better" sound, whatever better means.
even if you consider accuracy as the basis for judgment. accuracy is hard to measure.
the recording can not be a reference, rather the live pdrformance must be, and as shadorne said, a microphone feed as the signal is compared to the sound of instruments. for most people, such a test is impractical.
Mrtennis, you said, "the terms high end and mid fi are used for marketing purposes. they are arbitray [sic] and subject to disagreement."
Yes, and the terms "sports car" and "sedan" are used for marketing purposes as well, however they have fairly clear meanings. As do the terms "Mid Fi" and "high end". It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. I don't see too many audiophiles disputing that Rotel is Mid Fi and Halcro is Hi Fi. I also don't see too many suggesting that Rotel sounds as good as Halcro! So, mabe there is something to the idea that Halcro costs more because it sounds better?
Why don't you show me some non-subjective evidence for your position that spending more money doesn't produce better sound? :) You're spewing just as much rehetoric; where's your data?
So, if the lower end gear really can sound just as good typically as the higher end stuff, why are there categories of quality in nearly every "Best Gear" report ever published by audiophile publications? And why is the price skewed upward as the quality increases? No correlation? That's rediculous - nonsense!
You think the manufacturers are scamming us? If you think so, you are one very cynical man. I have run into manufacturers at low and high price points whom I felt were giving away their technology/products to the community very cheaply (even in five figure products). Others, again across the price spectrum, have been more suspect in terms of the cost/quality ratio. This is a far more realistic view of the audio landscape.
One thing that has worked for me when evaluating a new/different component in my system is not to look for an immediate difference or improvement when you first fire up the new component. Rather, just spend time listening to it for awhile with familiar music, like over a period of days, and then switch back to the old piece of gear. For my ears, it's easier to pick out differences and make a good comparison in this way and it will let your ears/brain zero in on differences in the old component vs. the new.
All too often I have hooked up a new component (like cd player) and at first it's difficult to hear any difference. But it can be very apparent after spending more time listening to it and then switching back to the old component. -jz
With practice it gets easier to hear differences right away, BUT there's nothing like going back to the original to make things crystal clear, assuming there is a difference.
I couldn't agree more regarding Tvad's view regarding hearing differences and system resolution. I guess I would simply add "neutrality" to resolution; knowing full well, of course, that one never really knows for sure *how* neutral one's system is, until an upgrade is made that reveals previous colorations. In my experience, however, it can take a while to feel confident the system is truly more neutral after such a change is made.
The only difference I can tell in an old 50 dollar panasonic dvd player and a 700 dollar Rotel is the cd spins a little quiter. Too bad that I have to upgrade again to get a dead silent transport, Anybody have any ideas?
Velocityofhue Ha, Funny thing is the 700 dollar rotel probably uses a 9 dollar transport and the 50 dollar panasonic probably uses a 8 dollar transport!
Depends on your price range, but you want a really good universal machine to not break the bank, and do it all so to speak for the time being with very little worry about future upgrades or investment woe's.. Look at an Oppo digital 980h, for 169.00 I bet it will beat the pants off what you have so far heard, and give you SACD, DVD-A, and world class DVD picture, look em' up, about 1.5 million positive reviews on this machine.
of course, that one never really knows for sure *how* neutral one's system is, until an upgrade is made that reveals previous colorations.
How do you know that it is not the "upgrade" that is adding coloration? This can just as often be the case - a higher price does not guarentee that the upgrade is more "neutral"....the higher prices item may simply have a dose of pleasant sounding sugar coating and therefore easily "wins the pepsi taste challenge"!!
no system is neutral. there are colorations which can be identified after serious listening. i think one should accept the fact that imperfection is reality.
hopefully, one can enjoy a stereo system being aware of its limitations. an "upgrade" may solve some problems while creating others.
the term "more" neutral is illogical. it is correct to say less erroneus, not more accurate, or more neutral, since accuracy and neutrality are states of perfection, both of which are unattainable.
Shadorne - I'm simply speaking of using one's own long-term to make careful determinations over time. Of course one has to be meticulous about this sort of thing; and of course an "upgrade" can add coloration.
Mrtennis - I agree with you completely, including where you say "more" neutral is illogical. I imagine - and hope - that people understood the gist of what I was saying, despite my own imperfection : )
Mrtennis, I feel that you have a knack of twisting and playing with words. You mentioned that no system is neutral and one shall accept imperfection as reality. Please kindly elucidate how would you qualify a system as "imperfect".
You mentioned the term "more neutral" or "more accurate" as not logical, and "less erroneous" as logical. You cited accuracy and neutrality are unattainable. Please kindly elucidate how would you qualify a system as "less erroneous".
There has got to be a benchmark for comparison purposes although this hobby is mostly about subjectivity. It is quite a norm for folks to use neutral, accurate, bright, warm etc. as adjectives to describe the sound of any particular system. Otherwise, there won't be any discussions in audio at the first place. As a reviewer yourself I think you should have used quite a lot of these terms in your write-up?
While I may agree with a few of your points, I am confused by your absolute statements made most of the time.
Nowhere is MrTennis so desperately needed as among a forumload of illogical audiophiles
as in MrSpock, Audio Trek, "to boldy go where no audiophile has gone before", episode "I, Mudd", as in "is that muddy sound or is it just me being illogical".
the book of engineering recorded music and remastering recorded music continues to be written. for better or worse however, there will be no consensus. the good news is that 'no consensus' makes recorded music infinitely more interesting. the 'feel' of a recorded track(or song)is a piece of the whole. what the engineer and/or artist is going for is their vision, not ours. take that away to achieve a singular(more uniform) high fidelity, and you're left with a hobby where everything's vanilla
A successful system is one that works well as a whole and consistently allows the key elements of the recorded art to shine through and produce enjoyment, despite the inherent technical flaws accumulated via both recording and playback during any particular listening session.
Going from a Marantz SA 8005 to an SA-10 was a good change. More refinement. Less grain and glare. There is some analog smoothness in the tonality on most discs
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
