Does anyone out there NOT hear a difference in CD

As mentioned above...system resolution is the key here .
It can be wonderful and a PITA !

BTW, at 60dB thems spkrs is doin good. Most won't do 25 before kicking a few buckets...

Gregm,

Indeed, yet it is all too common to see extremely expensive CD players hooked up to the kind of speakers you mention. My ATC mid domes are respected for being around 0.1% THD (around 60 db) across most of the all important midrange with wide even dispersion and at loud live concert/realistic music levels (this is the very hard part - as any old headphone can achieve these low distortion figures at tiny output levels and so can many speakers at modest levels).

However, I have no illusions - almost any modest CD player should be able to perform better than these distortion levels.

I am not sure that many people fully grasp the implications of these performance specifications when building systems. At what point does a CD player become so good that it is enough and other things matter much more (like room acoustics and speakers).

Borrow a Cambridge to listen to in your system. I suspect you'll hear an improvement; however, if you do, then why settle on a Cambridge? It's not exactly top of the heap and your other equipment is superior.

Also, consider getting a universal player, so you can try SACD and DVD-A. For $1500 or less, you can buy a new Pioneer DV-58AV or an Oppo and have Ric Schultz mod it to resolution well beyond the Cambridge.

Dave

<05-28-08: Jylee
It's all about your system and your hearing. You'll find dozens of skeptics over there on avsforum who firmly believe all CD players sound the same, and I don't doubt them when they say *they* can't hear difference. I don't really care, as long as *I* can hear the difference.>

I totally agree with Jylee. I hear the differences between most CD players in my system which consists of a Shanling A-3000 amp and Dynaudio s1.4's with 10year old MIT MH750 cables. When auditioning CD players, everyone sounded different. I trust my ears and the difference were significant and each had its own charactor. I find it incredible that some here can't hear the difference and weard comments about the total cost of your system will dictate the amount of difference you will hear between them??

Omegaspeedy, you commented, "I find it incredible that some here can't hear the difference and weard [sic]comments about the total cost of your system will dictate the amount of difference you will hear between them??"

It's not so incredible that some cannot hear the differences. Between tired old ears subjected to too much Harley riding, concerts, playing in bands, etc. and age, there's a LOT of audiophiles who have no clue how adversely effected their hearing is. Through the years they lose a touch of it and still think they hear "just fine". If people were to get hearing tests as they do vision tests, there would be millions of hearing impaired (to one degree or another) individuals discovered. Likely, many would inhabit the realm of audio, and make their appearance here. I have several times had audiophiles over to my home who, as the conversation lengthened and I discovered they were not hearing nuances properly, admitted they had hearing loss (and or) tinitus.

Maybe everyone chipping in on this thread hears well, maybe not. It cannot be dismissed out of hand. You, like me, seem to be able to mentally parse what is being heard.

As to "...weird comments" about the cost of systems. Does this really have to be explained? This is so fundamental that it should be self-evident, but we continuously are barraged by hopefuls who insist that cheapo gear will compete sonically with higher end stuff. Sure, there's an anomaly occasionally where a budget component outstrips some higher end piece, but on average one gets much higher performance with higher end gear.

My point was that mid-fi (one can easily spend today $10k and end up with a solidly Mid-Fi rig) gear simply won't allow a listener to discern the music as well as truly high end gear. Anyone who's worked their way up the ladder from Mid-Fi to higher end gear will understand that.

i.e. If let's say, Cary Audio has an introductory amp as well as one that's multiples more costly, their top of the line model, which one will allow for better perception/experience with any cdp? (That is, which will reveal the nature of the cdp better?) Well, it had best be the high bucks model, or else Cary is going to be out of business pretty quickly - and the same with any other manufacturer.

So, a guy cobbles together some lower end gear (I'm not dismissing budget audiophiles; I was one for more than a decade). Do you really think that it's going to be as good at presenting the cdp's nature as higher end gear? Is it "weird" to suggest that a system comprised of high end gear will produce better results?

One of my systems consists of Naim Nait 5i, Cambridge Audio Azur 840C player (w. digital input), Audioquest cabling, Eminent Technology LFT-VI speakers with a pair of HSU ST-1 subs - about a $5k system. Nice, fun, but in no way compares to my reference rig. I can pretty much swap out any speaker I want in the reference rig and still have better sound than the $5k rig. I can upgrade pretty much any piece in the $5k rig and still not get near the quality of the reference system.

The point is, there is a sonically cumulative/accretive effect from higher end gear which cannot be achieved at lower cost. Not typically.

The argument that system "synergy" can make up for expending money on higher end components is fallacious. One can achieve stunning results (system synergy) with the proper mix of high end gear.

{BTW, my pics of my rig are way outdated; I'm on about my third system succeeding those pics. I have been so busy reviewing that I've let that aspect of the hobby lapse, as it's not critical.}