Does anyone out there NOT hear a difference in CD

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.

Dave

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.