Old_Tech
Yer-isn't!
Thanks Dave. This looks like a nice book to read over this winter. I dont know how you find the time to do everything you do these days!
CD player recommendation
- Thread starter MeatInStereo
- Start date
Thanks Dave. This looks like a nice book to read over this winter. I dont know how you find the time to do everything you do these days!
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
I happen to have a bit more time on my hands than I did a coupe weeks ago. :thmbsp:
That book is great if, as the case was with me, you know very little to nothing about the history of classical (in this case meaning Western classical music), and even less about individual composers. Believe me, you'll have a list of things you want to check out after you read each section; the author suggests specific pieces to start with for each composer.
ShaolinEar
Get cha mind right!
You have a pair of speakers that deserve the very best components you can beg, borrow or steal. They are ultra revealing and will expose every wart and pimple in your gear. Using good gear will reward you with superior sound. They are going to make you want to upgrade everything else.
IMO you should look for the best player/transport you can afford. A good DAC should be your next addition after the player.:yes:
You lucky sod!!!:thmbsp:
I agree with this approach, however, what amount of money are you willing to spend? I think that will make the difference to some degree. To reiterate JoeESP9's point, you have some great equipment, why not get the best source components you can afford?
----------------------
table - Rega Planar 3a
cd - CA Azur 650C
pre - NAD C165BEE
amp - 2 Hafler XL280's (mono)
spkr - Boston Acoustics RS260's
sub - Martin Logan Dynamo 1000
Old Busted H
the H is for Hotness
Back when CD's first came out (sorry if this is a re-post, I'm a n00b so waddaya want) one of the 'phile mags did a blind comparison between a high-end CD player and the $69 Emerson (at the time, the cheapest CD deck) and nobody could tell a difference.
Personally I like to use the DVD player as it saves room in the stack and has that spiffy HDMI input.
Personally I like to use the DVD player as it saves room in the stack and has that spiffy HDMI input.
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
Please have a look here: http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=280195 . The experiences of many people here go in a different direction. Higher end CDPs do sound better and for that reason some people are willing to pay the higher prices that these models command. Otherwise, the only alternative explanation would be that those people are manipulated by the magazines, sales people, etc and are unable to have a critical listening ability!. If you have a chance ever, bring a musician, if possible a classical music one, and sample different CDPs . I´ve done this many times, as I´ve got friends playing in the local orchestras, and they always find interesting differences. Classical musicians have a very good memory of the way acoustic intruments sound, and are able to tell you a lot about the way they are reproduced by some electronic gear. IMHO, CDPs have a hierarchy and as soon as you start going up you can listen to the many improvements, as it happens when one does the same say for a vinyl rig. This review contains impressions on 3 great (above average) CDPs: http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=308065 . I quote it because my own experiences go along with what has been reviewed there.
MeatInStereo
Can outrun 80% of snakes
After just upgrading from a DVD player to a high end player....there is a huge difference in sound that is produced. If you read this entire thread you will see I had a
DVD player and then got a TOTL Marantz from 10 years ago that I later compared to a 1K player of today that was highly touted and the Marantz one even though the it was older as it produced a sound as guiller said to reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments. After my review I did blind tests with different friends that vistited and the Marantz won everytime as everyone thought the sound sounded like a live performance in the room....the DVD player was in the test to....everyone said it sounded OK, but not real.
I read reviews as well...but only as a guide...not the last word....my ears are the last word.
DVD player and then got a TOTL Marantz from 10 years ago that I later compared to a 1K player of today that was highly touted and the Marantz one even though the it was older as it produced a sound as guiller said to reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments. After my review I did blind tests with different friends that vistited and the Marantz won everytime as everyone thought the sound sounded like a live performance in the room....the DVD player was in the test to....everyone said it sounded OK, but not real.
I read reviews as well...but only as a guide...not the last word....my ears are the last word.
It's 30 years later. A lot has happened.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
If it sounds better to you, it is better! Trust your ears.
There's a British mag' that usually evaluates their gear with blind testing. I think it's "Hi Fi Choice." In the last issue they had a CD player shootout with detailed descriptions of various differences that everybody heard, and there were many.
One 30 year old article means absolutely nothing. Think about it...this little box creates the music. There is no analog signal coming into it. The audio signal is made by this box, a combination of the DAC and the quality of analog output section....and you say they all do this equally well? They really don't. I recently went though evaluating all of my CD players at home, after getting into a much more revealing system that made my old CD player sound like crap. In a comparison of what I already had, a 10 year old Sony sounded better than a new Cambridge Audio 640. Most blind testing folks would tell me that my built in bias would have not let that result be possible. "The cheap used player beating the new one! Impossible! Every 'audiophile' is persuade by the more expensive things!". To solve another question I had (can it get better?) I borrowed my local Hi Fi store's demo Marantz SC-11s2. I'm an analog fan over CD, and my turntable has been sitting unused since I borrowed this thing. It's the first time digital has taken on the things I like about analog.
All I'm saying is you owe it to yourself to be a little open minded about this. You've obviously taken the time to join an audio discussion board, we're all just here to help each other out and share our listening impressions. My impressions are that digital has nearly as much variation in sound as changing cartridges on my turntable. It's easier to get acceptable sound, perhaps, with digital, but no less hard to really get the specific sound that you're going to be happy with in the long run.
blackfly
Fidelius Claritus
In reference to John's post, do NOT discount TOTL players from 10 or even 20 years ago. I just added a mint Denon 3560 player (TOTL from 1990/1991) and it is sonically SUPERB. It uses a 20 bit DAC, and four (4) of them, and the sound is never harsh, lacking or tiring. Moreover, I have a Denon 3520 which I bought modded (and found it better than a Bryston BCD 1) and in direct comparison to that, the 3560 is better to my ears.
We can debate whether new is better or not but my point is only this: do not discount TOTL from the past. CD's and CDPs evolved immensely since the early 80's to the late 90's and if the player is in good shape I would venture a TOTL unit from the early 90's would be as good, perhaps better, than todays units. Better built for sure (my 3560 is near 50 lb).
We can debate whether new is better or not but my point is only this: do not discount TOTL from the past. CD's and CDPs evolved immensely since the early 80's to the late 90's and if the player is in good shape I would venture a TOTL unit from the early 90's would be as good, perhaps better, than todays units. Better built for sure (my 3560 is near 50 lb).
jleon92f
Addicted Member
This is what I have:
http://us.marantz.com/Products/1154.asp
http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summary.php?PID=14
They have served me well over the years.
Thanks,
John.
http://us.marantz.com/Products/1154.asp
http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summary.php?PID=14
They have served me well over the years.
Thanks,
John.
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
I heartily endorse this point of view, as I came a long way to find myself in this position now, based on my own listening experiences.
Old Busted H
the H is for Hotness
I guess if I thought about it, I'd have to admit that there could be some advancement in CD player technology over the past 25 years. After I read that in '85 or '86 I more or less wrote off high-end CD's as marketing/snake oil, which happily coincided with my budget
And, to tell the truth, it's been at least 20 years since I even thought about it. Always had other things come up when it was time to buy audio equipment. Now I'm completely lost, new receivers don't even have a phono pre-amp anymore.
Sigh. Maybe I'll just keep living in the past. Too many new tricks for this old dog.
I guess if I thought about it, I'd have to admit that there could be some advancement in CD player technology over the past 25 years. After I read that in '85 or '86 I more or less wrote off high-end CD's as marketing/snake oil, which happily coincided with my budget
And, to tell the truth, it's been at least 20 years since I even thought about it. Always had other things come up when it was time to buy audio equipment. Now I'm completely lost, new receivers don't even have a phono pre-amp anymore.
Sigh. Maybe I'll just keep living in the past. Too many new tricks for this old dog.
Stick around...there's fellows here who are experts on everything, especially vintage if that's where you choose to play. I hope I didn't turn you off with my lengthy diatribe there. There is a lot of new gear, especially 2-channel integrated amps, that comes with phono preamps. It's just harder to find these days, but there's a whole lot still going on in good ol' 2-channel. Even turntables are going strong these days. I'm a recent convert to new gear myself, after being a convert to vintage gear several years ago.
Old Busted H
the H is for Hotness
I ain't going anywhere, I can take lengthy diatribes when they're deserved
Russellc
Addicted Member
You can process it however you want, but MP3 is compressed, period. No matter what you do to puff it up, it will not, repeat will not add what is missing back in. Really doesnt matter if you dont compress your result, the original was compressed. Many do this and are quite happy with the result, but on a high resolution system it will tell on itself. MP3 is MP3. The only MP3 in my house is spoken word.
Russellc