Audio Research Ref: CD8

Hi Chadeffect, not sure if you can be serious about the cd 7's "imaging". In my experience 90% of "imaging" results from room interactions and setup. 90% of the remaining 10% comes from the speakers. I think you might legitimately claim that the cd 7's dac setup (no upsampling) and tube output stage lacks ultimate detail/clarity. This may or may not be a good thing depending on ones system or listening preferences. Tubes for example tend to limit sibilance ( a microphone artifact)and this is a good thing. Even APL's wo2 after gaining detail with a zillion dac's uses a tube output stage. My guess is that all the detail in the world just didn't sound quite right without it. Upsampling or over sampling can be a good thing if done well. Generalizations about cd players doesn't make much sense to me. IMHO differences are actually pretty small ( compared to speakers, preamps, and rooms/setups)and come down mostly to the output stages. No offense intended. Just my own biased opinion - Jim
jim

Hi Chadeffect,
The Krell 20i needs the "right" cables. When I first purchased the 20i, new,
many years ago (I've since picked up another one, used) it had some grain, no
doubt about it...but, it had tremendous bottom end and body; no other digital
approached that effect. Adding a Cardas Golden Cross interconnect tamed the
slight forwardness. Adding a Shunyata King Cobra V1(not a V2) some years ago
eliminated the grain, added spaciousness and gave the player even greater
dynamics. If you're lookling for ultimate detail at a cost of full-bodied impact,
then you look elsewhere. By the way, the Playback Design player surely beats
the EMMM player (don't know about the latest separates). So-called "ancient"
digital can still compete with today's best when adding the "right" power
cord. Power cord options didn't exist back in the 90s.

Hi Aldavis,

No offense taken. I understand your point. In my experience once all those things are dealt with and the rest of the system is fine tuned and working at its best, all you have left is the source. Rubbish in rubbish out.

What I mean by imaging is the ability for the player to resolve the information on the disk that make it possible for the rest of the system to carry it into your room. This is very sensitive information and is easily lost or disturbed. Spacial coherence layering, timing, depth, width etc. Once exposed it is impossible to go back, especially on "real" recordings as opposed to processed ones. The lack of artifacts produced by the player itself enables what was once hidden to be clearly heard if the rest of the gear is up to it.

Hi Lula,
I remember the krell quite well. Around that time I had the ML 31.5/30.6 reference player. There is something about that generation of chips and clocks and components. There is a burliness to the sound. Grain, fat bass, slight haze and vague imaging by comparison to what is available now at that level. The disk is not presented as a whole. You know what I mean? Like there is a spot light on a particular area.

Even though the tweaks you speak of will help, it can never replace the already lost information. It is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. I am not saying those older players cant sound good for some types of music, its just more about refinement (and what you are used to). I could never go back to my old ML now as good as it was. I did have some fantastic listening sessions with it at the time!

Dont be fooled by all that audiophile BS that was around in the 80s and 90s. That technology is not getting worse its implementation is only better and cheaper on the whole. Digital has come of age recently IMHO.

Chad, O.K. I think you and I use 'imaging' differently. I refer to the ability to properly and solidly place an sound in space. What you call imaging I call resolution or detail. This ability does vary somewhat from player to player. I have been "exposed" to it and I think I just value it less than some people do. It is important but even with cost no object players ( nwo2) with tons of it "it" still needs a good output stage to create an enjoyable listening experience. I'm glad you point out the need to judge based on better recordings. As a 50's - 60's jazz nut it rare for me to warm up to modern protools , overly compressed recordings. It's now a contest to make the hottest ( loudest) recordings which to me all sound like sh#t. To me there is no way to judge anything based on them. Enjoy - Jim

Hi Jim,

I know what you mean regarding the use of the word "imaging" usually. I used it in this case to describe where I feel the steps forward have been taken with these CD players. Audio research are good company and it is very unlikely the CD8 is bad.

Protools does get a bad name in the audiophile world. Protools is only a computer hardisk recording system. It does what it is told. Protools on its own is not bad and is used in many great recording studios. It has fine clocking capabilities and can, with the latest hardware, record at very high sample rates.

The people using it are the ones to blame if a recording sounds bad.

Using dynamics processing to create a loud master is a problem and is mainly about radio play and how it sounds on the radio next to other recordings. If used well it can sound great and better than much of the old gear with all the old patch leads and patch bays adding all that noise and distortion. The ability to process in the digital domain is utterly silent, free from noise and precise, allowing any shaping of sound possible. It is possible to do well.

Remember some of those great remasters of classics are all done in similar systems and can sound great. Miles Davis and so on.