Does anyone out there NOT hear a difference in CD

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.}

Douglas,
Take it from someone who owns more esoteric/rare high-end and expensive gear than you and perhaps anyone else on this site does: Don't ever underestimate the value of "Synergy" between components! At the very core of the matter are such things as the output versus input impedance/capacitance/inductance that governs the electrical interface between components. Higher end gear does not guarantee better sound! In the 80's the higher the price of the component meant a higher degree of refinement, better part selection and a design with more substance 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. I would love to continue this discussion but it is irrelevant as most do not understand the laws of acoustics, psychoacoustics and the science behind the engineered circuits.

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).