Can I really hear a difference between two cheap CD transports?

[SemiChronic]

Reply to #24

Seems we can unanimously(almost) agree that amps can sound different, but cd palyers arent allowed to.

the argument rages on lol

 

[Al ears]

Maybe there is a difference between the CD transports you compared, maybe there isn't. There shouldn't be one unless the units are malfunctional or poorly designed.

Read another way...

Maybe there is a difference between the CD transports you compared, maybe there isn't. There shouldn't be one unless the manufacturers designed the units to sound different from one another, perhaps to appeal to a wider market with a spectrum of sonic taste.

By industry standards it is poor design, but if someone likes it he should buy it, as long as he realizes it's a frequency response flavor or just a louder output, not extra resolution, extra details etc.

Can you point out a CDP that doesn't have a flat FR -/+0.5dB and the standard 2Vrms unbalanced output? Those would be the candidates for real audible differences.

The CXC is just a transport. They're normally designed just to spin and read a CD. Surely it's the DAC section where most 'tuning' is performed.

 

[Gazzip]

Maybe there is a difference between the CD transports you compared, maybe there isn't. There shouldn't be one unless the units are malfunctional or poorly designed.

Read another way...

Maybe there is a difference between the CD transports you compared, maybe there isn't. There shouldn't be one unless the manufacturers designed the units to sound different from one another, perhaps to appeal to a wider market with a spectrum of sonic taste.

By industry standards it is poor design, but if someone likes it he should buy it, as long as he realizes it's a frequency response flavor or just a louder output, not extra resolution, extra details etc.

Can you point out a CDP that doesn't have a flat FR -/+0.5dB and the standard 2Vrms unbalanced output? Those would be the candidates for real audible differences.

Yes bud Vladamir the ear has a non-flat frequency response. This means that tones played at the same volume with different frequencies can sound like they are being played at different volume levels. So you can hear some tones easier than others just based on the way the ear is made and its response to vibrations at different frequencies. A change of far less than +/- 0.5dB in the FR can therefore have a significant impact on the way that one listener can perceive a piece of music in comparison to another listener's experience. Even within a relatively small FR range a manufacturer can illicit different responses from different people, or a house sound which differs from person to person if you prefer. Perhaps this is why we all tend to gravitate to different kit?

 

[matt49]

Maybe there is a difference between the CD transports you compared, maybe there isn't. There shouldn't be one unless the units are malfunctional or poorly designed.

Read another way...

Maybe there is a difference between the CD transports you compared, maybe there isn't. There shouldn't be one unless the manufacturers designed the units to sound different from one another, perhaps to appeal to a wider market with a spectrum of sonic taste.

By industry standards it is poor design, but if someone likes it he should buy it, as long as he realizes it's a frequency response flavor or just a louder output, not extra resolution, extra details etc.

Can you point out a CDP that doesn't have a flat FR -/+0.5dB and the standard 2Vrms unbalanced output? Those would be the candidates for real audible differences.

Yes bud Vladamir the ear has a non-flat frequency response. This means that tones played at the same volume with different frequencies can sound like they are being played at different volume levels. So you can hear some tones easier than others just based on the way the ear is made and its response to vibrations at different frequencies. A change of far less than +/- 0.5dB in the FR can therefore have a significant impact on the way that one listener can perceive a piece of music in comparison to another listener's experience. Even within a relatively small FR range a manufacturer can illicit different responses from different people, or a house sound which differs from person to person if you prefer. Perhaps this is why we all tend to gravitate to different kit?

Isn't it the case that in order to shape FR a digital transport would have to incorporate some EQ? Are there actually any digital transports that do this?

That's a genuine question BTW (it can be hard to tell, especially with so much ordure being flung around at the moment).

 

[Gazzip]

Maybe there is a difference between the CD transports you compared, maybe there isn't. There shouldn't be one unless the units are malfunctional or poorly designed.

Read another way...

Maybe there is a difference between the CD transports you compared, maybe there isn't. There shouldn't be one unless the manufacturers designed the units to sound different from one another, perhaps to appeal to a wider market with a spectrum of sonic taste.

By industry standards it is poor design, but if someone likes it he should buy it, as long as he realizes it's a frequency response flavor or just a louder output, not extra resolution, extra details etc.

Can you point out a CDP that doesn't have a flat FR -/+0.5dB and the standard 2Vrms unbalanced output? Those would be the candidates for real audible differences.

Yes bud Vladamir the ear has a non-flat frequency response. This means that tones played at the same volume with different frequencies can sound like they are being played at different volume levels. So you can hear some tones easier than others just based on the way the ear is made and its response to vibrations at different frequencies. A change of far less than +/- 0.5dB in the FR can therefore have a significant impact on the way that one listener can perceive a piece of music in comparison to another listener's experience. Even within a relatively small FR range a manufacturer can illicit different responses from different people, or a house sound which differs from person to person if you prefer. Perhaps this is why we all tend to gravitate to different kit?

Isn't it the case that in order to shape FR a digital transport would have to incorporate some EQ? Are there actually any digital transports that do this?

That's a genuine question BTW (it can be hard to tell, especially with so much ordure being flung around at the moment).

Hi Matt, Vlads comments were in respect of a CDP as was my response.

 

[matt49]

Maybe there is a difference between the CD transports you compared, maybe there isn't. There shouldn't be one unless the units are malfunctional or poorly designed.

Read another way...

Maybe there is a difference between the CD transports you compared, maybe there isn't. There shouldn't be one unless the manufacturers designed the units to sound different from one another, perhaps to appeal to a wider market with a spectrum of sonic taste.

By industry standards it is poor design, but if someone likes it he should buy it, as long as he realizes it's a frequency response flavor or just a louder output, not extra resolution, extra details etc.

Can you point out a CDP that doesn't have a flat FR -/+0.5dB and the standard 2Vrms unbalanced output? Those would be the candidates for real audible differences.

Yes bud Vladamir the ear has a non-flat frequency response. This means that tones played at the same volume with different frequencies can sound like they are being played at different volume levels. So you can hear some tones easier than others just based on the way the ear is made and its response to vibrations at different frequencies. A change of far less than +/- 0.5dB in the FR can therefore have a significant impact on the way that one listener can perceive a piece of music in comparison to another listener's experience. Even within a relatively small FR range a manufacturer can illicit different responses from different people, or a house sound which differs from person to person if you prefer. Perhaps this is why we all tend to gravitate to different kit?

Isn't it the case that in order to shape FR a digital transport would have to incorporate some EQ? Are there actually any digital transports that do this?

That's a genuine question BTW (it can be hard to tell, especially with so much ordure being flung around at the moment).

Hi Matt, Vlads comments were in respect of a CDP as was my response.

Ah, silly me, hadn't noticed the thread drift.

 

[keeper of the quays]

Differences in frequency response in CDPs (not transports alone) are there, some attentive (or even better, trained) listener may concentrate and detect some tonal differences, though subtle. But that doesn't mean there are more details that make violins sound more realistic. It's not a turntable where you can spend and spend and spend on the player in order to extract more and more information from the flawed analogue media. You are outright getting all the information with brilliant dynamic range, brilliant SNR, with frequency range beyond our real life hearing abilities. If the filtering and output gain stage mess the FR a bit that's OK, it shouldn't prevent you from enjoying music in full. I'd be more annoyed from a noisy transport mechanism than anything else.

I've owned (believe it or not) over 20 CDPs. I collected them like stray kittens since they were so cheap and I lusted over them as a kid in magazines like WHF. I had hi-end and the cheapest of the cheap. I heard differences like anyone else.

The baffling thing about CDPs to regular music lovers is if even the cheap basic Marantz does everything perfect, why is a super expensive 25kg CDP made? What's the point? Surely it sounds better? Well, it's better made, more luxurious, nicer looks, perverse levels of (over) engineering, lovely buttons to touch and CD drawers to open with silky hydraulics. It's high class travel, but it's still on the same train.

I really can justify in my mind expensive CDPs. There is a mechanical thing to them (only barely) and if you squint juuuust right they may look a bit analog to the eye. But DACs... oh man what a mind fu*k. 1500 GBP for a pocket sized DAC... I can't justify that. That is done out of sheer ignorance. Before DACs became popular to audiophiles us the technical minded knew it was the next audio foo thing. It started as foo but is now mainstream and no one is questioning it. I see every day people who don't know Ohms law discussing DACs and which one is better based on which ($7) chip it has, thus does it justifies its price of $700. Someone who has no idea on how an electric stove works is discussing Wolfson vs Cirrus as if they are turntable cartridges... its a bit funny to watch.

mmm...my poor flawed linn turntable sounds the best of all my sources by some distance...re cirrus and wolfson dacs in ipods/pads etc...try this..a ipod touch 4 which i believe has a wolfson dac and a newer ipod 5 which i believe has the cirrus dac..play them both from your hifi..try this as a test track..youtube 'basso' its a good recording not complex so easy to hear the difference..you tell me which is better?

 

[Vladimir]

mmm...my poor flawed linn turntable sounds the best of all my sources by some distance...re cirrus and wolfson dacs in ipods/pads etc...try this..a ipod touch 4 which i believe has a wolfson dac and a newer ipod 5 which i believe has the cirrus dac..play them both from your hifi..try this as a test track..youtube 'basso' its a good recording not complex so easy to hear the difference..you tell me which is better?

I'll test anything you want in any way you want it, as long as you finance it.

 

[Vladimir]

Differences in frequency response in CDPs (not transports) are there, some attentive (or even better, trained) listener may concentrate and detect some tonal differences, though subtle. But that doesn't mean there are more details that make violins sound more realistic. It's not a turntable where you can spend and spend and spend on the player in order to extract more and more information from the flawed analogue media. You are outright getting all the information with brilliant dynamic range, brilliant SNR, with frequency range beyond our real life hearing abilities. If the filtering and output gain stage mess the FR a bit that's OK, it shouldn't prevent you from enjoying music in full. I'd be more annoyed from a noisy transport mechanism than anything else.

I've owned (believe it or not) over 20 CDPs. I collected them like stray kittens since they were so cheap and I lusted over them as a kid in magazines like WHF. I had hi-end and the cheapest of the cheap. I heard differences like everyone else.

The baffling thing about CDPs to regular music lovers is if even the cheap basic Marantz does everything perfect, why is a super expensive 25kg CDP made? What's the point? Surely it sounds better? Well, it's better made, more luxurious, nicer looks, perverse levels of (over) engineering, lovely buttons to touch and CD drawers to open with silky hydraulics. It's high class travel, but it's still on the same train.

I really can justify in my mind expensive CDPs. There is a mechanical thing to them (only barely) and if you squint juuuust right they may look a bit analog to the eye. But DACs... oh man what a mind fu*k. 1500 GBP for a pocket sized DAC... I can't justify that. That is done out of sheer ignorance. Before DACs became popular to audiophiles us the technical minded knew it was the next audio foo thing. It started as foo but is now mainstream and no one is questioning it. I see every day people who don't know Ohms law discussing DACs and which one is better based on which ($7) chip it has, thus does it justifies its price of $700. Someone who has no idea on how an electric stove works is discussing Wolfson vs Cirrus as if they are turntable cartridges... its a bit funny to watch.

 

[Al ears]

Cannot understand why no one ever sticks to the original post. The need to spout knowledge continues I guess.......

I'm still waiting to hear what amp the OP managed to connect a CD transport to. Presumably one with an inbuilt DAC.

 

[TrevC]

Hi,

Interested in views of more experienced hifi people...

Yesterday I listened to Cambridge CXC transport versus a Yamaha CD-N301, both played into the same amp from their coaxial digital OUT. I wanted to buy the cheap player with more features and did not expect to hear a difference. But thought I could. Is this REALLY possible? how?

(I should add that I am a new to the forum and indeed to forums! So please be kind if you have to slap me down for bad form or breaking protocol! I am in process of choosing a replacement system for my old super-budget separates bought 23 years ago in student days and am desperate for advice on a few topics...)

Surely only you can answer that.

You need to do a blind test and get someone to swap them. Around 100 times.

 

[keeper of the quays]

mmm...my poor flawed linn turntable sounds the best of all my sources by some distance...re cirrus and wolfson dacs in ipods/pads etc...try this..a ipod touch 4 which i believe has a wolfson dac and a newer ipod 5 which i believe has the cirrus dac..play them both from your hifi..try this as a test track..youtube 'basso' its a good recording not complex so easy to hear the difference..you tell me which is better?

I'll test anything you want in any way you want it, as long as you finance it.

come down to hastings..come and have a listen..ill even bake some cakes..gluten free im afraid..ill borrow a cirrus dac ipad/pod! I have the wolfson dac ipod touch 4..and after you grudgingly concede im right! Ill stand you a pint or two at the pub up the road..

 

[Vladimir]

mmm...my poor flawed linn turntable sounds the best of all my sources by some distance...re cirrus and wolfson dacs in ipods/pads etc...try this..a ipod touch 4 which i believe has a wolfson dac and a newer ipod 5 which i believe has the cirrus dac..play them both from your hifi..try this as a test track..youtube 'basso' its a good recording not complex so easy to hear the difference..you tell me which is better?

I'll test anything you want in any way you want it, as long as you finance it.

come down to hastings..come and have a listen..ill even bake some cakes..gluten free im afraid..ill borrow a cirrus dac ipad/pod! I have the wolfson dac ipod touch 4..and after you grudgingly concede im right! Ill stand you a pint or two at the pub up the road..

I'm 1,630 miles away, otherwise I'd be glad to have fun with nice kit and a gluten free merry host.

 

[Vladimir]

I wish to share this awesome thread here as well.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I wish to share this awesome thread here as well.

How many more times before the witching hour?

 

[Vladimir]

I wish to share this awesome thread here as well.

How many more times before the witching hour?

Are you on page 5 by now? Good, init?

 

[keeper of the quays]

mmm...my poor flawed linn turntable sounds the best of all my sources by some distance...re cirrus and wolfson dacs in ipods/pads etc...try this..a ipod touch 4 which i believe has a wolfson dac and a newer ipod 5 which i believe has the cirrus dac..play them both from your hifi..try this as a test track..youtube 'basso' its a good recording not complex so easy to hear the difference..you tell me which is better?

I'll test anything you want in any way you want it, as long as you finance it.

come down to hastings..come and have a listen..ill even bake some cakes..gluten free im afraid..ill borrow a cirrus dac ipad/pod! I have the wolfson dac ipod touch 4..and after you grudgingly concede im right! Ill stand you a pint or two at the pub up the road..

I'm 1,630 miles away, otherwise I'd be glad to have fun with nice kit and a gluten free merry host.

raincheck then..

 

[ID.]

this awesome thread[/url] here as well.

How many more times before the witching hour?

Are you on page 5 by now? Good, init?

[/quote]

Page 5 was fuil of jokes going over my head

Page 4 let me know I need a dedicated mains spur *crazy*. Overall, it's interesting but there's too much static and the same arguments against sound technical points that I see on here (i Know because when I make a change that improves things I make an emotional connection with the music. Double blind testing is invalid because that's not how I listen to music so there's no way to pick up these day and night changes that magic cable x brought to my system, etc., etc.).

Anyway, I'm off to call an electrician to see about a dedicated mains spur.

 

[ChrisIRL]

The expectation bias argument presented in threads like this is always pointed at the person expecting the £1500 product to sound better than the £100 alternative. The same bias could exist for the naysayer who physcologically expects and demands the £100 product to sound as good as the £1500 product. Reality probably lies somewhere between the two.

As a separate point I will say in my experience realibility tends to be the scourge of the cheaper product, not just in hifi, but with all consumer products. Generally, exceptions aside, you get what you pay for as they say.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

The expectation bias argument presented in threads like this is always pointed at the person expecting the £1500 product to sound better than the £100 alternative. The same bias could exist for the naysayer who physcologically expects and demands the £100 product to sound as good as the £1500 product. Reality probably lies somewhere between the two.

As a separate point I will say in my experience realibility tends to be the scourge of the cheaper product, not just in hifi, but with all consumer products. Generally, exceptions aside, you get what you pay for as they say.

very true i can get my old marantz cd6005 out and 100% know that my abrahamsen v1.0 cd player will out class the marantz cd6005 anyday of the week you get what you pay for and its not physocological and yes both are cd players that do the same job as each other but the abrahamsen is miles apart and i welcome anyone round to see for them selfs

 

[ID.]

The expectation bias argument presented in threads like this is always pointed at the person expecting the £1500 product to sound better than the £100 alternative. The same bias could exist for the naysayer who physcologically expects and demands the £100 product to sound as good as the £1500 product. Reality probably lies somewhere between the two.

As a separate point I will say in my experience realibility tends to be the scourge of the cheaper product, not just in hifi, but with all consumer products. Generally, exceptions aside, you get what you pay for as they say.

very true i can get my old marantz cd6005 out and 100% know that my abrahamsen v1.0 cd player will out class the marantz cd6005 anyday of the week you get what you pay for and its not physocological and yes both are cd players that do the same job as each other but the abrahamsen is miles apart and i welcome anyone round to see for them selfs

Because I know what I heard

I'd be round to do the blind switching for you, but I'm even further away than Vlad. Maybe next time you're in Tokyo

 

[keeper of the quays]

Im not convinced re expectation bias...reason being i had a test of a few of my cd players..the most costly modern one being the arcam diva..so presumably my expectation was high? Pricey..modern..gonna be fab? It wasnt fab..the roksan, arcam, 940 sony..all sounded similar..i used david bowies black star as the reference music..my £50 well old clunky mission pcm 7000 beat them...so where was my expectation bias then? Maybe the only real changes in hifi over the years is my hearing? Lol...

 

[cheeseboy]

Im not convinced re expectation bias...

unless you do things to specifically remove them from the equation (which I wouldn't expect anybody to do in a casual situation such as buying a cd player - just for the record) then you can't rule it out, just the same with the placebo effect etc.

It's human nature, it's built in, there's certain things you can do to mitigate or try and rule them out, but if you don't, you can't rule them out full stop. Just the way it is, and it's not just hifi this applies to, it's pretty much everything.

edit - just to add for those that like to make stuff up. I'm not saying expectation bias *was* the reason you can hear the change, just that you *can't* rule it out when you have done nothing to rule it out.

 

[keeper of the quays]

I take your point, but is it bias? Expectation is just that! I expect a £700 cd player to sound better than a £250 cd player, if my expectation colours my view of the more expensive player..i accept that could be bias..surely bias works both ways..as when I listened to the arcam my expectation was it must be better! It wasn't..more assumption than bias.(same thing maybe?) but when I listened to clunky mission..it was better no doubt about it..if I had a bias I guess I would then look at costlier players..and not bother with my other cheaper cd players? Bias being towards 'rubbish in,rubbish out'..this didn't happen..to be honest though...i have a leaning toward old kit being that in old days budget was less of a issue! I think Mr Vladimir said all amps etc were just rehashed old models...im minded to agree however modern kit is made to a more stringent budget! Hence the trick of sounds great in hifi shop but after more concerted listening at home not do good? Tiring? This is the ploy of voicing in a certain way..old kit didn't need this artifice as budget wasn't the major push..so it was up to the designers taste in music which gave the sound in my opinion..i guess that's bias? So perhaps my view is a little coloured after all! Hahaha..i just beat my own argument! Lol

 

[Rups]

Cannot understand why no one ever sticks to the original post. The need to spout knowledge continues I guess.......

I'm still waiting to hear what amp the OP managed to connect a CD transport to. Presumably one with an inbuilt DAC.

Assume this was rhetorical question but answer is "Yes, obvs!" It was a Cambridge CX60A. Not overly impressed, for the record. And I love the sound of my old P25 so was predisposed to like it (speaking of biases!).

We switched the two transports around quite a few times and the store guy described the difference in sound to me in a way I recognised. The Yamaha was brighter and edgier with sharper noise of breath catches of the singer, but in a tiresome way. There was some electronic tones that faded in and out of the lower midrange on the demo CD track which were almost completely missed by the Yamaha but clearly present on the Cambridge. This seemed pretty objective really.

My bias, I felt, was to be determined that they would sound the same so that I could buy the cheaper player with more features. But this ambition was quickly deflated as soon as the cable was switched.

the Yamaha does not seem to have any switchable filters on the digital line. Not sure about the CXC.

Its always possible the store guy sabotaged the Yamaha somehow as he knew he couldn't make any margin on it!