Audio Research Ref: CD8

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.

I think the CD-7 has silly looks: it has in fact the same appearance as the preamp (even with those handles!) but with a CD compartment + sliding door on top of it. Sorry for these offending remarks.

Chris

Chad, I appreciate your response. Yes protools is not the enemy per se. My wife at one point was studying studio production and we have several friends who do it for a living. All of them have protools and some of them still have the old analog stuff and while I can't explain why it sounds better to my ears it does. Even if originally recorded via analog and then transferred to cd. Bill Evans/Tony Bennett is a good example. Of course it may have to do with the much greater care that engineers used to take. It might be all in my head. I don't know. Analytically you should be dead on correct about all the old patch bays etc. However, and this maybe where you and I "hear" differently, I love all the nooks and crannies of imperfection. Higher sample rates and by extension upsampling SHOULD improve sound. But does it ? What are you 'filling' in with ? Semi-relatedly vocal pitch correction absolutely kills me. Averaging to where a note 'should' be robs the singer of their uniqueness. WRT dynamic range compression of course it IS necessary for cd recording and can be used to improve sound by sustaining notes etc. Most people, however, now record for playback hardware which doesn't have the capability of 'dynamic range expansion' and/or software which uses lossy compression so it's always hot hot hot. Oh well, I've finished rambling - Jim

Jim I enjoyed the rambling.

I dont want to rob this thread too much more, but there are some things that I think cause some people to prefer the idea of analogue.

1 its what many have grown up with and are used to.

2 Analogue equipment has on the whole a sympathetic way of coloring music. Digital has not.

Put both well sorted out studio systems against each other and you will find a mixture of digital and analogue will be best.

Try bouncing tracks in the analogue domain. Its a joke, and very lossy. In the bad old days you would then have to re EQ to bring the life back into the bounce bringing even more noise and signal path. Bouncing digitally you wont be able to tell the difference.

Digital can be lifeless and crunchy. It can also be utterly breathtaking.

Regarding the recording techniques like using auto tune and so on. Again this is a tool which speeds up the recording process and can be used well or just turned off!

Years ago producers spent weeks on vocals dropping in words and so on to fine tune a take. There is no money in the music industry anymore. Not like it was, so the process of making the product has changed. I can promise you, no one in it would go back though, apart from for the budgets.

In the beginning we were sold that digital was perfect when it was not. Now it is different, although people are still judging it by talking about out of date equipment and software. I hear lots of people trashing digital and then when you ask what they are using, its some rubbish 10 years old or even older.

Regarding the upsampling or non upsampling debate, I think it is all about implementation. You just have to find the right player (maybe the ARC CD8... See what i did there?!). DACs are much better now and the understanding of what the problems and solutions are is clearer.

My hifi source uses DSD, and upsamples red book CDs to DSD. It is astonishing. Whatever you listen for.

Now I must apologize for my rambling. Happy listening.

All,

This is turning out to be quite a lively and interesting discussion/debate.

My CD7 shipped from ARC last Wednesday, so hopefully I see it mid-end of this week.
I will report on the sonic differences when the unit returns.

The cost of the upgrade/modification was $100. I can't comment nor be quoted to ARC as "the cost", but that was the charge to me.
The mod involves replacing the 2 of the 3 6H30 tubes in the power supply (the ones side by side providing regulation) with a 5881. (5881 is a more "industrial" 6L6).
The 3rd 6H30 in the power supply section remains.

ARC also brought everything in the unit up to spec. ie. My unit turned on by itself when plugged in. (not suppose to do that). They also performed a full lab, and listening test.

I think it was a very good unit before this upgrade/mod. I suspect it will sound better when it returns.

I have had or listened to Krell 505, krell Ref64 with MD10, Rega. The CD7 with regard to high frequency transparency, lack of edge, and midrange detail bettered all of the above.
The Ref64 with MD10, is still in my opinion an incredible combination, wish I did not sell.
But I still think overall for musical enjoyment the CD7 is quite a bit better.