Pioneer stable platter cd player

[matthewpiano]

Eddie Pound:
Why is this Pioneer player so good then?

What is it doing that other transports do not do?

How can you be certain it's better? You could be imagining it?

We could all be imagining that one thing is better than the other but if we THINK something is better, by virtue of the increased enjoyment it brings, then why do we need some sort of evidence to prove that it is better? (I'm not suggesting you believe we do Eddie, just expounding on the whole topic).

In some quarters there seems to be an obsession with taking a scientific approach to hi-fi and that measurements and figures provide answers as to whether one product is better than the other. To me, these scientific measurements are completely meaningless. Something could measure perfectly, but if it doesn't sound enjoyable to me for my wide range of listening over long periods of time, I'd much rather have something which doesn't measure perfectly but provides more enjoyment.

 

[drummerman]

matthewpiano:Eddie Pound:
Why is this Pioneer player so good then?

What is it doing that other transports do not do?

How can you be certain it's better? You could be imagining it?

In some quarters there seems to be an obsession with taking a scientific approach to hi-fi and that measurements and figures provide answers as to whether one product is better than the other. To me, these scientific measurements are completely meaningless. Something could measure perfectly, but if it doesn't sound enjoyable to me for my wide range of listening over long periods of time, I'd much rather have something which doesn't measure perfectly but provides more enjoyment.

You're of course right mattehwpiano but there can be no doubt that anything that measures well is closer to the 'truth' than stuff that adds it's own. A similar situation exists with tellies. I recently bought a well regarded product that is known to be as accurate as possible or at least up there with the best when properly calibrated yet some regard it as dull and lacking the 'pizzaz' of some more mainstream products. Which one is better? If you don't mind to see/hear badly recorded stuff in it's dire reality then products that calibrate/measure accurately are the answer. The upshot is that well produced material, audio or visual, is stunning to an extend that equipment that glosses over in-accuracies simply can not re-produce. Personally I prefer to hear/see the truth. Having said that, I currently use and enjoy a very cheap system (like you) that is incapable of doing so and have owned similar in the past to the same effect.

 

[JoelSim]

drummerman:
I believe the only hifi that is capable of re-producing recordings as close to the original as possible is equipment that measures well. That includes cdp's and speakers. Whether you like the accuracy is a different matter.

Everything else is subjective and open to the interpretation of the listener only so the debate/analogy ofÿ 'old vs. new'ÿ is a question of personal preference rather than the capability/accuracy of the equipment used.

I appreciate you joining in AEJim.

Ps. Does anybody else have problems posting at present? It seems painfully slow.

I'd blame JohnDuncan. He works there.

ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

Whilst I can accept subjective points in some areas of hifi, CD transports is not one of them.

You either get the data off of the CD or you do not...

Agree?

 

[manicm]

Eddie Pound:

Whilst I can accept subjective points in some areas of hifi, CD transports is not one of them.

You either get the data off of the CD or you do not...

Agree?

Nope, because like a turntable is prone to wow and flutter, CD transports are prone to jitter - mechanical and otherwise. And since the 90s major hifi makers like Cyrus were making seperate transports and DACs.

Also note that Denon's 2500 (?) Blu-ray player is essentially a transport with no HD audio encoding onboard.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes... jitter... another measurable variable in this discussion.

Do you have the figures for the Pioneer?

And more importantly, do you know how high levels have to be in order to be audible?

I have seen research papers that state levels of 50ns to be audible to less than 5% of listeners...

That is a level far higher than any modern CD player.

I ask again...

Why does this Pioneer sound better than others? How can it sound "warmer"?

Out of interest, does it look quite nice and is a joy to use? Could that influence your perceptions?

 

[Tear Drop]

Eddie Pound:
Yes... jitter... another measurable variable in this discussion.

Do you have the figures for the Pioneer?

And more importantly, do you know how high levels have to be in order to be audible?

I have seen research papers that state levels of 50ns to be audible to less than 5% of listeners...

That is a level far higher than any modern CD player.

I ask again...

Why does this Pioneer sound better than others? How can it sound "warmer"?

Out of interest, does it look quite nice and is a joy to use? Could that influence your perceptions?

Do you actually listen to anything or do you let 'science' influence your perceptions?

 

[manicm]

Eddie Pound:

Yes... jitter... another measurable variable in this discussion.

Do you have the figures for the Pioneer?

And more importantly, do you know how high levels have to be in order to be audible?

I have seen research papers that state levels of 50ns to be audible to less than 5% of listeners...

That is a level far higher than any modern CD player.

I ask again...

Why does this Pioneer sound better than others? How can it sound "warmer"?

Out of interest, does it look quite nice and is a joy to use? Could that influence your perceptions?

Look, this is a lack of exposure to hifi on my part, but why would I think my old 25 yr old Technics seperates system with a 'New Class A' amp (now RIP), large paper cone floorstanders and CDP is the best system I've heard? I've spent much more on different components and my Solo Mini still does not come close. I've heard a friend's Krell / CA / Dynaudio and wasn't 'really' blown away, but that might be due to the mix.

I mean, with my old Technics system the words brightness and harshness were not in my vocabulary, the system never let on, instead I was enjoying the sounds immensely. And the system had a great soundstage and transparency, esp. with crafted discs like Peter Gabriel's US or Prefab Sprout's Jordan: The Comeback. I think the system would have a bit of 'grain' but I never tired of it. Maybe it was the speakers - for its day its high-frequency was impressive - and had 2 tweeters - one normal one, and one 'supertweeter' - like some Linns and others have today.

I only had brightness and harshness when I replaced the CDP and became painfully aware of such hifi no-nos.

I am still looking for the holy grail - maybe a PC based system? Who knows...

 

[matthewpiano]

Eddie Pound:
Yes... jitter... another measurable variable in this discussion.

Do you have the figures for the Pioneer?

And more importantly, do you know how high levels have to be in order to be audible?

I have seen research papers that state levels of 50ns to be audible to less than 5% of listeners...

That is a level far higher than any modern CD player.

I ask again...

Why does this Pioneer sound better than others? How can it sound "warmer"?

Out of interest, does it look quite nice and is a joy to use? Could that influence your perceptions?

It doesn't matter!!!! Why is it so hard to believe that an older piece of equipment can sound better than newer ones? It is perfectly plausible to me. My CD63MkII KI Signature absolutely kills the other CD players I've had including the Arcam CD73, and the Cambridge 740C because my music is far more consistently enjoyable. Perhaps it wouldn't measure as well (particularly against the Cambridge) but measurements have no effect on my every day listening whereas the sound I hear with my own ears absolutely does.

Yes, a player, amp or speaker system that measures well will be far more faithful to the original recording but, for so many recordings that can make them close to unlistenable. There is a reason why demonstrations at shows use insipid lounge jazz music. Its because its perfectly recorded and shows the equipment in its best possible light. Play anything taxing like a large scale orchestral piece or a rock album and its a different story.

I don't want my hi-fi to dictate which CDs I listen to. I want it to give me detail, atmosphere, a sense of scale and attack, good soundstaging etc. but I want to be able to enjoy ANY disc I throw at it without having the deficiencies of the original recording process thrown in my face. I don't want fidelity to the recording process because, so often, that process has been badly flawed. I want fidelity to the music. My badly measuring 90s electronics give me that in spades and the fact that I bought my CD player for ony £180 and my amp for only £98 doesn't mean its a cheap system, it simply means I picked up some of the best budget hi-fi ever made at a bargain price. The reviews of the Pioneer A400 said it all at the time - it sounds 'ineffably right'.

 

[chunky70]

Totally agree matthewpiano.

 

[drummerman]

matthewpiano:

... the fact that I bought my CD player for ony £180 ... doesn't mean its a cheap system, it simply means I picked up some of the best budget hi-fi ever made at a bargain price

.

With all due respect, that seems a lot of money for a ten or so year old player that ended retailing for around £450 if I remember correctly. Sound quality not being the issue, reliability and parts degradation probably becoming one.

Way too expensive if mainly because of age. Similar to the cult following of NAD's overrated 3020 which still sell for silly prices. As more and more will die you may be onto a winner there. My advise .. box it and buy a NAD player instead.

As always, my opinion only, take it with a pinch of salt and you may disagree.

 

[bretty]

To throw my hat into the ring, My Rotel RCD-991, blows any other player i've heard away by a clear margin, and it's over ten years old. I listened to new players from Cyrus, Roksan, Denon and Marantz, before I heard the Rotel. I think it has a lot to do with the burr-brown DAC's. I've heard some say that the newer DAC's are inferior in sound quality to the older models.

 

[manicm]

bretty:To throw my hat into the ring, My Rotel RCD-991, blows any other player i've heard away by a clear margin, and it's over ten years old. I listened to new players from Cyrus, Roksan, Denon and Marantz, before I heard the Rotel. I think it has a lot to do with the burr-brown DAC's. I've heard some say that the newer DAC's are inferior in sound quality to the older models.

Yeah, the Burr-Browns were the Rolls-Royce of DACs in the best way possible. No matter what some say today I still got immense pleasure from my then 11 year old Technics CDP 7 years ago! And it was a budget player with no remote control either.

I'm really beginning to think that newer hifi is not necessarily better because of higher assembly costs today.