Mallette Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 Well, there is no question in my mind, but apparently in many others. I am astonished at how few folks with kilobucks in their systems have pricey CD players but no SACD or DVD-A playback capability. Give that universal players can be had for 150.00 or less, I find this a bit strange. So, inquireing Klispchoholics want to know...why bags o' cash for a CD player, but not a few peanuts for SACD/DVD-A? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 I have used an expensive DVD-A machine (a $2k Toshiba SD9200) which sounded great with redbook cd's. I am now selling it because I didn't buy many DVD-A titles. I just got a much more expensive dac from a friend (for an unlimited time loan) . I still think that the Toshiba is a great player and the improvement that I get from the transport/dac combo is not big enough to justify their purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsl Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 I have a Denon 2900 universal DVD player and a NAD C542 CD player. On almost all CDs the NAD sounds better but on SACDs and DVDA discs the Denon sounds very good. Does anyone know of a universal tube DVD player? That would be a great product to have. Also with computer chips that a year or 2 ago were only in the very costly DVD players are now being put in cheap DVD players. So the $150 DVD player sounds very good. xman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjgeraci Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 I would have to agree with Guy. I think it comes down to priorities and the fact that multichannel titles are still not that commonplace. My system is set up for DVD-Audio and SACD with my Denon 2900, and I like the Denon for that purpose. But, other than the novelty of discrete sounds in various speakers, my system's DVD-Audio and SACD performance is not that much of a step up from my redbook, with my dedicated CD player. Or, to put it another way, I have my redbook performance at such a level where I am just not missing that much from DVD-Audio and SACD. As a result, I have a limited number of multichannel recordings, as opposed to CDs. Xman - I heard rumours that a tubed DVD-Audio or SACD player was in development. Do not know if such has made it to production. That is why I keep one unit for DVDA/SACD and my tubed CD player for redbook. Carl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 Not to hijack the thread, I recently purchased a Denon 3910, not a 'high end' CD player, given how I have seen people on the forum spend $$$$ but IMO a very nice Universal player. Allows me in most cases (not SACDs) to use the denon link for the first time. I have really enjoyed the improvement in sound stage and sound quality and the all the options for material it gives me from my previous changer. The picture is also a huge improvement, the blacks on the DLP are so much darker. I have not gotten to the point of using all the possible tweaks. Now to the hijack, What are your favorite DACs for use on universals or for that matter CD players, if you don't mind me asking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 Limitations on space and preamp inputs, and timing. I searched long and hard for a CD player (Wadia) that satisfied me. Since then, I've heard very good sound from SACD players, which weren't available then, but now have many CD titles which are still in abundance, and I'm satisfied with my CDP. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 29, 2005 Author Share Posted March 29, 2005 Does anyone dispute the definition of "Universal" player as meaning DVD, DVD-A, SACD, with VCD, etc. optional? Anyway, my own player is a Pioneer selling for around 150.00 meeting the above specs. That was the reason for the query. I just wondered what the opinions of the group would be of 4X CD resolution (DVD-A vs. CD) for 150.00 as opposed to a super CD player at XXXX bucks. When I say "My own player" I am referring to the machine I use for commercial laser media other than 2 channel. At least some of you will know or recall that I have my entire digital collection of 2 channel stereo on HDD's so I don't have to sweat the player thing as a qualitative issue. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 ---------------- On 3/29/2005 9:39:44 PM Mallette wrote: I just wondered what the opinions of the group would be of 4X CD resolution (DVD-A vs. CD) for 150.00 as opposed to a super CD player at XXXX bucks. ---------------- Myself, I'd have to compare. Sounds good in principle, but Wadia, for example, does a number of things to maximize CDP clarity plus I had some mods done, so I, at least, can't predict how it would come out. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 29, 2005 Author Share Posted March 29, 2005 I hear you, Larry, and it sounds like you are understanding my, so far, poorly stated question which I am going to amplify then CRASH for the night. The question is far higher resolution through off-the-shelf opamps and DACS as opposed to far less resolution "restored" and pampered by exotic circuits. Yep, that is the question. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 The reason to have a kilobuck cd player is it will sound better than a $100 cd player.This is the same reason for a 1k dvd player,a pioneer 563a($100 which I own one)won't compete with a Denon,Marantz etc.. at 1k.While the 563a(for example)is a lot for the price its still just a really good $100 player.If you were to judge sacd/dvda on a unit like this you may be inclined to think hi-rez is all hype. A good cd player will sound as good or better than a cheap dvd/sacd/dvda player.A good dvd multi player is worth owning,you get a great picture,great features,great audio all in one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 I am with you Mallet, I too own a Pioneer all-in-one player (the 575 over here). It really is an all things player (except vinyl that is!!) including CD, SACD, DVD, DVDA, picture disks, MP3 on DVD and God knows what else. My thinking was also similar to yours - why buy a big $$ CD player when a small $$ all-in-one might be able to match the sonics, given the superiority of the medium. Sadly it doesn't work. Tony has a Unison Unico CD player that is about 1500 euros over here (maybe 2000 - cant remember now). We played a number of SACD's with CD layer on both and a few SACD's in comparison to separate CD's of the same title. The SACD layer on the Pioneer was moderately better than the CD layer on the same unit. It was killed - dead, however, by the Unico. Actually the Unico played Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms better than my old vinyl rig (the modded project). Tis a damn good player. (as an aside I am pleased to report the Clearaudio, however, wipes the floor with it on the same recording). My personal conclusion is, therefore, that these cheapy units are great to have - and massively convenient - but dont expect the sonics to live with a decent dedicated CD player - whatever the source media. (Actually I can't say that as we have not tested DVD-A - no titles to be had here but I would be very surprised if there is a big leap). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 I have a very high regard for your opinions, Max. It would be interesting to have a listening session with you along these lines to sort of figure out what one person zeros in on as opposed to another. Here is where both my foundations in this business/hobby and, perhaps, the orgins of this thread as well. In 1975 I became Director of Sound Production for a large producer of A/V materials for the public schools. The majority of these were played back on Wollensak cassette decks. Solidly built, but hardly "high fidelity." Further, the audio was as close as "brick wall" filtered as you could get from 150hz down as a 50hz pulse was used to advance the filmstrip. There was general displeasure amongst the clients and company with the audio quality, and I was asked if I could clean it up. The production facilities weren't terrible, but not exactly professional either. There was an Ampex 500 half-track mono (the one in the brown suitcase), a Superscope mixer, a Dual TT, one of the Wollies as a master cassette, etc. So, I redesigned it throughout. Crown 800 4 channel RR's, a Russco broadcast TT, big Gates board (fresh from broadcasting, it was the stuff I knew), Little Dipper filter set, and a vacuum tube level devil (I forget the designation, but a legendary leveling device). Also, Several EV RE-50 mics. I was under constant pressure to explain why all this high end hifi stuff was necessary to produce cassettes with a range more like that of a good telephone connection. The results said it all. The clarity of the finished product improved dramatically and beyond any debate. That was when it became my personal belief that no matter what you do with it in between, the ultimate quality of the sound you will hear is most influenced by the quality of the source materials. I've told another story that is similar in this list before, that of getting in my car after church one morning, and hearing this marvelous piano recording pour out of the speakers. My first thought was "outstanding recording, excellent FM!", then suddenly realized it was one of my own recordings on a CD I'd forgotten was in the car. Perhaps the above in some ways characterizes the distance between our starting points when making judgements of audio quality. From what I've seen, Erik M is probably between us and the most objective person I've been exposed to (at least philosophically). In my own case, I've simply not had enough training in detecting circuitry differences to either debate it or judge. My own training is in source material, so that it my point of view. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 "That was when it became my personal belief that no matter what you do with it in between, the ultimate quality of the sound you will hear is most influenced by the quality of the source materials." I almost agree with you. I think I would change what you have writen slightly however, as follows: "That was when it became my personal belief that no matter what you do with it in between, the ultimate quality of the sound you will hear is most influenced by the quality of the weakest link. If that weakest link is the source materials then you are correct. The most important point though, is that many possible upgrades, even if they are not the "weakest link" in absolute terms can still make a dramatic difference. In your example - had you changed the speakers throughout the building that too might have made a dramatic difference - possibly even more than the recording process - it is difficult to know these things. What it all basically amounts to - in the Max developing theory or audio reproduction - is that even if one item is weaker than the others it does not mean that you are actually pushing it to its sonic limits, so upgrading elsewhere can still have dramatic consequences. Time to read my tagline again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 I completely agree with Max -- changing the weakest link is as important as trying to focus only on sources. Incidentally, does your term "source materials" mean the medium (CD, SACD, LP, etc.) or the source player? And the trouble is, I don't always know what the weakest link is. I thought my system sounded pretty good if not great, until very surprised when I shifted to a good tube amplifier -- not a source item, but it sure brought out much better what the sources were giving the system to work with. Still one of the more dramatic changes in my system. I had a similar surprise when I changed the tonearm. Are you primarily pursuing a surround sound recording? I do miss out on that with only 2-channel CD, but that's the way it is for now. I would like to think that your recording will sound just great playing only the CD layer. Some SACD hybrids do, but unfortunately some do not and I'm reluctant to buy SACDs for that reason. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 Max, Larry: I could not agree with your wording change precisely as you put it. I would agree that the SECOND most critical item is the weakest link in the reproductive chain. An analog from another field: In teaching entry level photography/ videography to my first year college students, I used to say that any image will look precisely as good as the worst piece of glass it went through. Now, you might use this to suggest support for the equal nature of ANY weak link in the audio reproductive chain, but I do not. Once an image has been degraded, no amount of post processing can return it to precisely the quality of the original, though it may be dramatically improved. The same for sound, IMHO. If the original quality, let's say the mics, suck, reproducing it with a straight wire with gain and sending it to an SET hooked to Jubilees with gold wire will not make it sound any better than those mics. With modern processing, one could make it sound MUCH better, but that is editorializing...much like a state of the art electronic organ...it can FOOL you, but it can never be TRVTH. So, my job as a recording engineer is to provide the most accurate image of a sonic event my abilities and available technology can provide. Larry: Actually, any stereo versions that are released of the proposed "Exploration of Space" series should be as good as good can be in that my Six Cardinal Rules basically suggests that the correct surround pickup technique is, in many way, "double stereo." Since my location technique philosphy forces me to work with no mixing and no post production, the front channels MUST be good stereo. See the pdf at www.mbsdar.com if you want to know more. As always, nothing I say here suggests that ANY other approach is WRONG. BTW, Max, I really like your tag line and resemble that remark as well. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 My personal conclusion is, therefore, that these cheapy units are great to have - and massively convenient - but dont expect the sonics to live with a decent dedicated CD player - whatever the source media. (Actually I can't say that as we have not tested DVD-A - no titles to be had here but I would be very surprised if there is a big leap). ++++++++++++++++++++ I have 2 pretty good cheapy new format players; Sony 775 SACD (no DVD video) and Panasonic RP-91 DVD -A (with DVD video). Both are very nice for the price point in hi res. Comparrisssons cannot be made since I do not own an identical software title in both formats. I lean twards DVD-A because Neil Young and Bob Stuart of Meridain side with DVD-A and I respsct their attention to detail in what I have read about them. I also do not care for the mega conglomerate predatory business practices of Sony. 2 classic recordings of mny early rock years are on DVD-A Nieil Young "Harvest" and Doobie Brothers "Captain and Me". Both are excellent mastering jobs. CD software will remain for many years as the largest software catalog availiable for reasonable prices. Used CDs are priced very nice. Unfortunately new vinyl is quite pricey. Math probelem +++++++++++++ I can get 200 new DVD-A titles I maybe like for $ 20 each. Total $ 4000 I can play more pleasing sound from 900 Cds I already own with a superior sounding dedicated CD player for most likely less than $ 4000 And I would like a higher end moving coil cartridge for say maybe $ 500 for superior LP playback for 1200 LPs. =================================== Consider it a blessing if you like CD from a $ 150 player. I have conviced myself I could apreciate the realism of a MF or Meridan or Mark Levinson DAC (for about $ 4000 for the sake of the argument); than buying 200 hi res software titles. Maybe it is a good thing I do not thave the $ 4000 buring a hole in my pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Dave, I had to read your post a couple of times to understand exactly what it was you were driving at. The second weakest link in the chain really fooled me for a while. If I understood what you wrote properly it is basically that no amount of upstream componentry can make up for missing elements in the source. This I agree with entirely, except.... I have been stuck at this point for the last 5 minutes trying to figure out a way of explaining the "except". Here goes: Imagine we have 2 versions of a given performance, one on CD and one on SACD. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the SACD recording represents a nominal 98% of what is possible to record whilst the CD represents, say 93%. In other words - in a perfect playback situation the SACD should be about 5% better than the CD overall. Whilst I am not comfortable allocating numbers to something as nefarious as overall sonic quality this is the best way I have of illustrating the point. Now - imagine that to get the full enjoyment of that SACD you need a top end player. I dont know SACD players too well but let us take the Accuphase as the top of what is possible (it may not be but at about $11,000 I cannot imagine it to be a bad player). If we allocate 98% to the Accuphase in terms of what it will re-produce from the recording then we can say that the combo of the Accuphase and our recording will yield 98% * 98% of the original. In other words around 96%. In comparison to our top end player, however, our all-in-one combo unit at $150 probably wont fair too well. Let us assume that it will only reproduce 80% of what is possible. That is 80% of 98% which is nominally 78.5% of the original recording. With a high end CD player we should expect to get near to the degree of music extraction of the accuphase - within the limits of the medium. Let us assume, therefore, that we can get 98% of what the CD contains. This we nominally allocated a figure of 93%. So 98% of 93% would represent 91% of the original recording. Now all the figures in here are garbage but the logic is not. Whilst many Cd recordings may be very far from 93%, many are not. We tend not to use garbage recordings to illustrate the capabilities of a medium, or, as in this case, perform a comparison. I have heard many astoundingly good CD recordings over the years, and not just on XRCD's and the like. It seems to me to be far more important how much time and effort the engineer has put into the production of the CD than the medium itself. 16 bit, 44.1 KHz PCM may not be perfect by any means but I fear its capabilities are far from being explored in many recordings. Does any of that make the remotest sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 What? No reaction to me brilliant analysis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 ---------------- On 4/1/2005 9:25:34 AM maxg wrote: What? No reaction to me brilliant analysis? ---------------- Sorry! I was busy all night sculpting a statue of you to worship... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 ---------------- On 4/1/2005 9:38:18 AM fini wrote: ---------------- On 4/1/2005 9:25:34 AM maxg wrote: What? No reaction to me brilliant analysis? ---------------- Sorry! I was busy all night sculpting a statue of you to worship... ---------------- Cleverdick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.