expensive Cd Players

sorry what was the point of this thread again ????
Hey a bold suggestion.....go listen to sum players and answer the question do the more expensive ones sound better ????
Every rule has an exception, but the well designed ones sound far better.......
Cheapo DAC's ....Well I tried a Monaca 2.... seems to get used in some very high end set-ups on the net.... Well it sure does NOT batter a 14 year old Linn Karik !!!.... it falls a bit short TBH.
And against a 1.1 ....ROFL !!!
 
ditton said:
Thanks for the reply, but what is your considered view on my first question?

btw, I was interested in a two-way discussion, not an interogation.

If you dont believe that there is opportunity for jitter in separate transport + dac systems, then I can understand why you would not bother to answer the second question.

But again, do you think that CDP manufacturers can eliminate jitter?
Click to expand...

Most cds have been digitally processed. Don't you think jitter has affected the sound on the recording ?

Of course jitter can be reduced. It's called reclocking. Look it up.
 
Most studios that do serious work in digital use a master clock so jitter is pretty negligible. Still, jitter is only part of the equation. The output stage certainly makes a large difference as I'm sure RobHolt and BBV will attest to after hearing the difference between the stock DEQ and the one with a different output stage (actually, not really any output stage). The PSU and algorithms used in the DAC will also make a difference. To a lesser degree, so with the actual components (caps, op-amps, diodes) used inside the thing.

Why do cheap CD players / DACs sound good? Because they are! Do more expensive ones sound better? Most of the time yes. But it is marginal in the grand scheme of things.
 
that has nothing to do with my thread.

Does 96 khz sampling rate sound better than 44.1khz ? why ?
 
anyway, just let me know when we can meet and you can bring your dac and talk about this when you get here.
 
Right, that's enough ramble from you.

contrary to your belief, no it doesn't increase bit rate, your wrong.
 
Tenson said:
Most studios that do serious work in digital use a master clock so jitter is pretty negligible. Still, jitter is only part of the equation. The output stage certainly makes a large difference as I'm sure RobHolt and BBV will attest to after hearing the difference between the stock DEQ and the one with a different output stage (actually, not really any output stage). The PSU and algorithms used in the DAC will also make a difference. To a lesser degree, so with the actual components (caps, op-amps, diodes) used inside the thing.

Why do cheap CD players / DACs sound good? Because they are! Do more expensive ones sound better? Most of the time yes. But it is marginal in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Simon I have already mentioned the fact that jitter, output stage are contributory factors.The question is how, and why.
In any case, there are recordings which were made many years ago, when the term jitter was non existent.
Stop being so vague, anything can make a difference.
 
Johnny, you do not 'own' this thread. Neither do you seem to own a manner that is condusive to pleasant exchange. At one time I thought that was an artifact of having to use English as a second langauge - for which I would forgive/tolerate much - but I think it may be that you do not seem to own a sense of humour that is easily shared.

In this hobby, I have been prompted to look up jitter and re-clocking, but rarely by this manner.
 
sastusbulbas said:
Sorry but couldnt quite remember what I meant with all the upsampling oversampling Watts filter tap length stuff thats available now to fettle with sample rates, no we dont do 16bit 24bit 68bit + stuff.

Seriously though, disregarding bit rate, Im not completely wrong, though maybe someone else could put it clearer.

At the moment there are around twelve different CD playing sources in here.

Anyway Reclocking, been available since the dawn of time, and it does not make all transports sound the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is no such thing as the ''watts filter''.

Where are you getting these ideas ?

Can you prove to me that the ''less error correction needed''
( whatever that means) the better the sound ?

''The cd transport mechanism , the more spent the better engineered this can be, as in Esoteric/Teac VRDS NEO and most laserdisc assemblies.''

No. This is again false. The majority of transports are designed to strict specifications, and are more than adequate for their intended purpose.

What people fail to understand is that the cd format is already obsolete. Yet new cd players come out on the market at an alarming rate.

A friend of mine, Tim, from E.A.R was experimenting with higher sampling rates and so on in the early 90's, but it would only work if the cd was cut at that specific sampling rate.

The questions you ask only demonstrate your lack of knowledge. Have you tried looking it up ?
 
bottleneck said:
I heard a second hand £100 cd player (actually I think it was less) yesterday.

Sounded easily good enough, and thats in the context of quite an expensive hifi (4-7k using rrp at a guess).
Click to expand...

£45 in fact :-)

-- Ian
 
Johnny said:
'cd digital audio' by definition conforms to redbook standard.

I've already mentioned some of the possible contributory factors which affect the sound quality. Jitter is not a factor which is outlined in the redbook standards.
Click to expand...

CD redbook technical details.

The redbook specifies the physical parameters and properties of the CD , the optical "stylus" paremeters , deviations and error rate , modulation system and error correction , and subcode channels and graphics.

It also specifies the form of digital audio encoding ( two channel 16-bit pcm clocked at 44100 hz).These parameters have become something of a defacto standard.

Bit rate = 44100 samles/s x 16 bit/sample x 2 channels = 1411.2 kbit/s ( more than 10mb per minute)

On the disc the data is stored in sectors of 2352 bytes each, read at 75 sector/s.Onto this is added the overhead of EFM, CIRC, L2 ECC and so on, but these are not typically exposed to the application reading the disc.

By comparison, the bit rate of a "1x" data CD is defined as 2048 bytes/sector x 75 sector/s = exactly 150 KiB/s = about 8.8mb per minute.

Copy protection on CD's on the other hand infinges on the above , hence its problems with some CD players.

Hence "CD digital audio" by definition does not have to conform to the redbook standard, but the Music industry and its CD releases are supposed to.

CD is an optical recording format which can be used for all sorts of recording and encoding IE Sony superbit and HDCD or 96khz, are these redbook ?

Audio CD transport = 10mb per minute ? CD-rom Data transport = 8.8mb per minute ? does this apply to todays computer drives ? I dont know but it would be interesting to know.Are we sure of the strict specifications of CD mechs ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sastusbulbas said:
I also remember when CD came out, it was never marketed as the ultimate quality, but the most convenient.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it was.

"Perfect sound forever" was`the Philips slogan at the birth of CD.

I also have the TdP articles somewhere and IIRC he states that CD wouldn't work to his satisfaction until it offered true 24 bit resolution.
 
I designed my system. I use pmc as my reference monitors.

It's better than yours given that your hi fi has been manufactured by someone else, and I know the ins and outs of what constitutes good sound. Moreover, you don't know what constitutes a good sounding room from an objective point of view.
you must understand that all these things have a cumulative effect.
 
Johnny said:
It's better than yours given that your hi fi has been manufactured by someone else, and I know the ins and outs of what constitutes good sound.
Click to expand...

what !!

Johnny said:
you must understand that all these things have a cumulative effect.
Click to expand...

on that you are right - go away!
 
No ...johnny

He has the propensity to irritate that is second to none !

Yes yes lets see some pictures..........

He wouldn't tell us what he was using last time he trolled.

Now it appears its all DIY....so why not say so before ?
 


Write your reply...
0 Words

Latest posts

Back
Top