Struggling to hear improvements with upgrades

[Native_bon]

Oh sweet! Herbie, Holland, DeJohnette and Chick all in there as well. I'm giving this album a second go. I remember finding ti a bit too awake and profane on the first listen.

Vladimir I can see from most of your post on this forum & video links your a real jazz man.*wink*

 

[Vladimir]

Oh sweet! Herbie, Holland, DeJohnette and Chick all in there as well. I'm giving this album a second go. I remember finding ti a bit too awake and profane on the first listen.

Vladimir I can see from most of your post on this forum & video links your a real jazz man.*wink*

Absolutely. I love real jazz.

 

[davedotco]

Two thoughts.

There are (measurable) differences that matter and differences that do not. The fact that the differences in speakers are obvious does not mean that they are important, particularly when comparing models of a comparable standard.

If you concentrate on 'presentational' differences then this makes things difficult as the sound of the speaker will vary from room to room and position to position.

CD transports are often said to 'simply read the bits' but that is simply not true in my experience. Sure I am a little out of date but differences were clearly audible and in some cases made a big difference to the quality of the reproduced music. I put that down to the ability of the mech to accurately read the disc (in real time remember) and the implementation of the error correction.

On the other hand, I am reasonably convinced that modern dacs are, efectively transparent, unless deliberately 'voiced' to sound different.

The differences in speakers I was referring to was distortion and not the 'house sound'. Distortion in the rest of the hifi chain is too small to hear unless you're using vinyl or valves.

If anyone is concerned about transport accuracy the solution is simple - stream.

Fair enough, but all speakers have relatively high levels of distortion and when comparing models of a similar type and price the differences will be modest.

Converging design criteria, manufacturing techniques and pricing are producing a large number of speakers with similar capabilities, what sets them apart is that they present the music in a different manner but it is my contention that these presentational differences are often not that important.

 

[davedotco]

Oh sweet! Herbie, Holland, DeJohnette and Chick all in there as well. I'm giving this album a second go. I remember finding ti a bit too awake and profane on the first listen.

Vladimir I can see from most of your post on this forum & video links your a real jazz man.*wink*

Absolutely. I love real jazz.

Wow.......*wacko*

 

[BigH]

With one of the coolest cover art and booklets ever made.

Artist: Mati Klarwein

A lot of Mclaughlin prana + psychodelia + chaos, a bit of Miles street cool jazz funk, Cobham trying to follow their mess (successfully), Ron Carter taking it easy and no Jarrett making man-suffering-on-toilet noises. Shorter and Zawinul somewhere in there. I didn't pay attention.

Well you should, an amazing and inovative album. If you had you would have heard Jarret making his trademark 'noises' on Sivad. Some of McLaughlins playing is devine, far better than much of his later stuff.

And you are right, the drumming is superb, but it is Jack DeJohnette doing the honours, Billy Cobham barely features.

Production wise it is interesting too, not just the trademark mix of live and studio tracks but the combination of live and studio recordings into the same tracks.....!

Edit. Just for interest, this is the kind of stuff I really like.......*dirol*

If you like sort of thing, you may like A Tribute to Jack Johnson same era and similar band.

 

[BigH]

sorry double post, having trouble with the spam filter now.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

To the op, what differences were you expecting to hear?

Which then forces me to ask what interconnects are you using?

If you already have an acceptable sound what improvements are you after.

I have a marantz cd63 and a NAD c660. They both sound fine , generally speaking they sound the same - but a 'closer' listen the NAD is better.

A cleaner more refined and separated sound. Becomes more apparent the longer you listen.

I use the digital coax out on my players and use the dac in the amp, to my ears the amps dac is better than those in the CD players.

Good opportunity to experiment with interconnects imo.

 

[davedotco]

With one of the coolest cover art and booklets ever made.

Artist: Mati Klarwein

A lot of Mclaughlin prana + psychodelia + chaos, a bit of Miles street cool jazz funk, Cobham trying to follow their mess (successfully), Ron Carter taking it easy and no Jarrett making man-suffering-on-toilet noises. Shorter and Zawinul somewhere in there. I didn't pay attention.

Well you should, an amazing and inovative album. If you had you would have heard Jarret making his trademark 'noises' on Sivad. Some of McLaughlins playing is devine, far better than much of his later stuff.

And you are right, the drumming is superb, but it is Jack DeJohnette doing the honours, Billy Cobham barely features.

Production wise it is interesting too, not just the trademark mix of live and studio tracks but the combination of live and studio recordings into the same tracks.....!

Edit. Just for interest, this is the kind of stuff I really like.......*dirol*

If you like sort of thing, you may like A Tribute to Jack Johnson same era and similar band.

You mean there are people who don't like that sort of thing? What's wrong with them......

 

[davedotco]

BigH.

Just playing the Jack Johnson recording.

You are correct, right up my street......*music2*

 

[matt49]

Fair enough, but all speakers have relatively high levels of distortion and when comparing models of a similar type and price the differences will be modest.

Converging design criteria, manufacturing techniques and pricing are producing a large number of speakers with similar capabilities, what sets them apart is that they present the music in a different manner but it is my contention that these presentational differences are often not that important.

This seems quite counterintuitive to me.

Of course, you're right that speakers have considerably higher levels of distortion than, say, CDPs. But I don't understand on what grounds, logical or otherwise, you can infer that the differences between speakers are small because they distort more. If anything, I'd have thought that the opposite would be the case.

Is your argument that because all speakers distort grossly and all speakers of similar type/build distort grossly in the same ways, therefore any differences between speakers of the same type/build will appear trivial? I could understand that as an argument, though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't stand up to experimental scrutiny.

I also don't understand how it could be legitimate to call the distortion of CDPs 'distortion' and yet call the distortion of speakers 'presentation'. The latter seems to be a signal example of calling a spade a 'manual earth-moving tool'.

Matt

 

[Vladimir]

The difference among CD players has been mythbusted and evidence shows its all due to the level of CDP analogue output (gain). Through their digital outputs they are all the same. Again we have the inconsitencies of analogue electronics to blame. Louder output sounds better due to characteristics of human hearing, if it doesn't overload the preamplifier. If it does it sounds really bad.

However, you can't pull the loudness trick with a cheap CDP. Its output circuitry can't give out too much Vrms so a more robust built is needed. CDP outputs analogue signal from a small circuitry and based on its build quality and capability to output clean sound at optimal output voltage (Vrms). The cheapest CDP will have a small IC runing everything and a robust high-end player will have mucho PSU and discrete circuitry much like a proper preamp. Does this make a difference? It appears not. In double blind tests they all sound the same when optimally level matched. But it does make a difference if they are calibrated to be louder than the standard 2Vrms. Having balanced outputs also requires more electronics in there. Not to the extent of a dCS Scarlatti but then again no one really needs a 100 million dollar yacht as personal transport for practical reasons. This difference in loudness and build quality is my personal speculation. Could be false as well.

And there is the old CDP issue with compressing sound when it is corrected due to laser reading errors. The most expensive Sony players (ES series) didn't have error correction, they skipped like mad. Could be another audiophile OCD syndrome, could be true. I don't know if there were tests done to debunk or prove this. Even if it is/gets debunked I'm sure something else will suddenly be realized as crucial to make CDPs be different like night and day depending on price. Just keep the mill turning.

Meanwhile, oldie but a goldie. Oh wait, his saxophone is made out of plastic!

 

[Thompsonuxb]

But Vladimir, have'nt you just contradicted yourself?

If they all sound the same then they'll sound the same.

I.e my discman should sound exactly like my NAD - it does not and yes the NAD is louder. But plugged into my amp there are clear differences - timbre, seperation and resolution.

And again I have to ask what's up with this level matching?.

It's stupid.

If they are equal they are equal. If one starts to fall apart at a given level then it's not the same is it?

The difference among CD players has been mythbusted and evidence shows its all due to the level of CDP analogue output (gain). Through their digital outputs they are all the same. Again we have the inconsitencies of analogue electronics to blame. Louder output sounds better due to characteristics of human hearing, if it doesn't overload the preamplifier. If it does it sounds really bad.?

However, you can't pull the loudness trick with a cheap CDP. Its output circuitry can't give out too much Vrms so a more robust built is needed. CDP outputs analogue signal from a small circuitry and based on its build quality and capability to output clean sound at optimal output voltage (Vrms). The cheapest CDP will have a small IC runing everything and a robust high-end player will have mucho PSU and discrete circuitry much like a proper preamp. Does this make a difference? It appears not. In double blind tests they all sound the same when optimally level matched. But it does make a difference if they are calibrated to be louder than the standard 2Vrms. Having balanced outputs also requires more electronics in there. Not to the extent of a dCS Scarlatti but then again no one really needs a 100 million dollar yacht as personal transport for practical reasons. This difference in loudness and build quality is my personal speculation. Could be false as well.

And there is the old CDP issue with compressing sound when it is corrected due to laser reading errors. The most expensive Sony players (ES series) didn't have error correction, they skipped like mad. Could be another audiophile OCD syndrome, could be true. I don't know if there were tests done to debunk or prove this. Even if it is/gets debunked I'm sure something else will suddenly be realized as crucial to make CDPs be different like night and day depending on price. Just keep the mill turning.

Meanwhile, oldie but a goldie. Oh wait, his saxophone is made out of plastic!?

 

 

[Vladimir]

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/amplifiers/75-amp-tests/150-sensitivity.html

Two CDPs with 2Vrms will sound the same in a double blind test. Two CDPs, one with 2Vrms and other with 2.3Vrms may sound differently, the later being louder. The amplifier will go louder sooner on the volume knob and give the impression of more power, clarity, transparency, musicality, PRaT, and all that mambo that no engineer can measure.

I'm merely speculating the part that a CDP needs to be built better to have the capability to push extra clean Vrms. For 0.3Vrms extra it sounds a bit unlikely. Copper chassis, Digital and Analogue separated PSU, full box of branded electronics etc. all make a good photo show and a heavy box. Without that the magic won't happen.

Resolution is same for both cheap and expensive CDP. It's 16bit/44.1kHz. Or is there other special resolution?

 

[chebby]

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/amplifiers/75-amp-tests/150-sensitivity.html

Two CDPs with 2Vrms will sound the same in a double blind test. Two CDPs, one with 2Vrms and other with 2.3Vrms may sound differently, the later being louder. The amplifier will go louder sooner on the volume knob and give the impression of more power, clarity, transparency, musicality, PRaT, and all that mambo that no engineer can measure.

I'm merely speculating the part that a CDP needs to be built better to have the capability to push extra clean Vrms. For 0.3Vrms extra it sounds a bit unlikely. Copper chassis, Digital and Analogue separated PSU, full box of branded electronics etc. all make a good photo show and a heavy box. Without that the magic won't happen.

Resolution is same for both cheap and expensive CDP. It's 16bit/44.1kHz. Or is there other special resolution?

A nice lump of SSD storage would be great in a CD player. (It needn't be very big.) It would make the struggle with 'iffy' CDs easier than the usual 'on the fly' / best efforts corrections. A half-way house between ripping a CD and playing a CD. It would mean the mechanism could slow down and retry - when necessary - without the 'reservoir' emptying and speed up when no errors are detected to fill the 'tank' again.

Small capacity SSDs are really cheap now. (£20 for a 32GB). I don't think it should add much to the price a sub £500 CD player.

In fact what I am talking about could probably be done with RAM for far less money.

Obviously you could just rip all your CDs, error free, to lossless ALAC / FLAC files, but some people will always insist on a CD player that plays physical media that they can touch and sniff or whatever people do. (Just don't tell them there is a full-blown ripping to SSD/RAM operation going on inside and they'll never know or care.)

 

[Vladimir]

Pros

· Interruption-free performance.

Cons

· Audio quality may be slightly worsened due to compression artifacts when the system is in use. Quality is improved with uncompressed buffering.

· Battery life is shortened due to the fixed (CAV) read speed of the disc and power required by the memory.

· Older players (1992–1997) had at most half the battery life when the skip protection system was in use.

· Players from 1997 have more power-efficient skip protection.

· Portable players, more so portable CD players but also some portable DVD players, that invariably include an ASP feature (Anti-Skip-protection), struggle with CD-R/RW, DVD-R/RW and DVD+R/RW discs - due to the ASP feature being enabled. This is due to the limited read capability of such write-yourself media discs over retail pressed discs. It is widely believed that the buffer system of the ASP feature conflicts with the limited read capability of such discs. This conflict affects the re-writable formats more so than the write once formats, but can be prevalent with both. It is therefore advisable that if you use write-yourself media often, to look for a portable player that allows ASP to be enabled/disabled. As such read issues are invariably non-existent when the ASP feature is disabled. Using slow burning speeds and high-quality media also helps.

Source: Wikipedia (has no reference where this information comes from though).

Using ABX testing people could tell a difference between a 16bit and 14bit player. The 16 being a new ES class Sony and the 14bit the original first Philips CDP. Mind that the used Philips is very old and might not sound as it came out of the factory. Electrolytic caps have a shelf life even when not used.

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

However, compared to a cheap portable 16bit Panasonic diskman, the expensive Sony sounded the same.

So there you go.

 

[Vladimir]

General rule:

If 7 o/clock is amplifier volume fully off, CD (or any input) should not sound loud until the volume control is rotated to about 2 o/clock or more.

If 7 o/clock is amplifier volume off, and CD is loud at 8 o/clock or 9 o/clock rotation of the amp volume control, there is something very wrong with your system. The concept of loudness and rotation of the volume control is that a well designed system arranges for a progressive increase in loudness to match that of the ear's characteristics: ideally fully rotated is fully loud. The volume range should not be bunched together at the bottom end of the volume control: that is not how it should be at all. That is evidence of a serious mismatch in signal levels[/u] between the CD recording, the CD player output and your amplifier input.

Fully loud in the bottom 20% of the volume control range means that the levels of the CD output v. the preamp input, preamp output/power amp input expectation are not correctly matched. This will seriously compromise the possibility of high fidelity sound and introduce the almost certainty of amplifier overload, clipping, a hardness and harshness of sound "digital glare" and even damage your speakers. Your system will sound hard and unnatural and for this reason alone, you may prefer the sound of vinyl, which sounds loud at a correct 2 or 3 o'clock rotation of the volume control.

If your system goes from silent to loud over just a small percentage of the amp's volume control range (digital, stepped or analogue) find out why and resolve it.[/b] The volume control is not[/u] a switch. It should have a progressive, smooth action and give progressively more loudness from typically 7 o/clock to 5 o/clock.

Resolving this mismatch is the best investment in high-fi sound that you will ever make and it may cost you nothing.

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2341-How-loud-versus-how-far-you-turn-the-volume-control/

 

[davedotco]

Fair enough, but all speakers have relatively high levels of distortion and when comparing models of a similar type and price the differences will be modest.

Converging design criteria, manufacturing techniques and pricing are producing a large number of speakers with similar capabilities, what sets them apart is that they present the music in a different manner but it is my contention that these presentational differences are often not that important.

This seems quite counterintuitive to me.

Of course, you're right that speakers have considerably higher levels of distortion than, say, CDPs. But I don't understand on what grounds, logical or otherwise, you can infer that the differences between speakers are small because they distort more. If anything, I'd have thought that the opposite would be the case.

Is your argument that because all speakers distort grossly and all speakers of similar type/build distort grossly in the same ways, therefore any differences between speakers of the same type/build will appear trivial? I could understand that as an argument, though I'm pretty sure it wouldn't stand up to experimental scrutiny.

I also don't understand how it could be legitimate to call the distortion of CDPs 'distortion' and yet call the distortion of speakers 'presentation'. The latter seems to be a signal example of calling a spade a 'manual earth-moving tool'.

Matt

There are times when I would swear that you are my old english master giving me a hard time over a lack of clarity is my essays.

The point is, as you suggest in your third paragraph, that an awful lot of modern speakers, particularly in the budget and mid-fi categories distort 'in the same way' as they are use the same design criteria and similar drive units. Inexpensive oem 5 or 6 inch bass mid units will have similar amounts of linear travel, will break up in much the same way, produce time smear due to their ported design etc, etc. Similarly many tweeters have similar characteristics one to another.

I did not mean that the differences are 'trivial' as you put it, just that they will be swamped by the deliberately engineered voicing of the speaker undetaken to make it conform to the designers wishes. It is this voicing that gives such a speaker it's characteristic sound and is the difference that most people will hear.

It is my argument that such differences are largely presentational, ie more/less bass, brighter/darker balance for example. Such differences will not only vary with the room and with speaker placement, but they are the kind of differences that are quite easy for the buyer to adapt to through the process known in hi-fi circles as 'running in'.

 

[davedotco]

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/amplifiers/75-amp-tests/150-sensitivity.html

Two CDPs with 2Vrms will sound the same in a double blind test. Two CDPs, one with 2Vrms and other with 2.3Vrms may sound differently, the later being louder. The amplifier will go louder sooner on the volume knob and give the impression of more power, clarity, transparency, musicality, PRaT, and all that mambo that no engineer can measure.

I'm merely speculating the part that a CDP needs to be built better to have the capability to push extra clean Vrms. For 0.3Vrms extra it sounds a bit unlikely. Copper chassis, Digital and Analogue separated PSU, full box of branded electronics etc. all make a good photo show and a heavy box. Without that the magic won't happen.

Resolution is same for both cheap and expensive CDP. It's 16bit/44.1kHz. Or is there other special resolution?

A nice lump of SSD storage would be great in a CD player. (It needn't be very big.) It would make the struggle with 'iffy' CDs easier than the usual 'on the fly' / best efforts corrections. A half-way house between ripping a CD and playing a CD. It would mean the mechanism could slow down and retry - when necessary - without the 'reservoir' emptying and speed up when no errors are detected to fill the 'tank' again.

Small capacity SSDs are really cheap now. (£20 for a 32GB). I don't think it should add much to the price a sub £500 CD player.

In fact what I am talking about could probably be done with RAM for far less money.

Obviously you could just rip all your CDs, error free, to lossless ALAC / FLAC files, but some people will always insist on a CD player that plays physical media that they can touch and sniff or whatever people do. (Just don't tell them there is a full-blown ripping to SSD/RAM operation going on inside and they'll never know or care.)

This is kind of what I was getting at with my earlier comments on why transports may sound different.

I believe the use of RAM in the way you describe has been tried, most notably here.

To be really effective you would have to ditch the real time 'read once' cd mechs for a 'multi read' computer drive but as you say this is getting so close to ripping as to be pointless

 

[Native_bon]

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/amplifiers/75-amp-tests/150-sensitivity.html

Two CDPs with 2Vrms will sound the same in a double blind test. Two CDPs, one with 2Vrms and other with 2.3Vrms may sound differently, the later being louder. The amplifier will go louder sooner on the volume knob and give the impression of more power, clarity, transparency, musicality, PRaT, and all that mambo that no engineer can measure.

I'm merely speculating the part that a CDP needs to be built better to have the capability to push extra clean Vrms. For 0.3Vrms extra it sounds a bit unlikely. Copper chassis, Digital and Analogue separated PSU, full box of branded electronics etc. all make a good photo show and a heavy box. Without that the magic won't happen.

Resolution is same for both cheap and expensive CDP. It's 16bit/44.1kHz. Or is there other special resolution?

A nice lump of SSD storage would be great in a CD player. (It needn't be very big.) It would make the struggle with 'iffy' CDs easier than the usual 'on the fly' / best efforts corrections. A half-way house between ripping a CD and playing a CD. It would mean the mechanism could slow down and retry - when necessary - without the 'reservoir' emptying and speed up when no errors are detected to fill the 'tank' again.

Small capacity SSDs are really cheap now. (£20 for a 32GB). I don't think it should add much to the price a sub £500 CD player.

In fact what I am talking about could probably be done with RAM for far less money.

Obviously you could just rip all your CDs, error free, to lossless ALAC / FLAC files, but some people will always insist on a CD player that plays physical media that they can touch and sniff or whatever people do. (Just don't tell them there is a full-blown ripping to SSD/RAM operation going on inside and they'll never know or care.)

This is kind of what I was getting at with my earlier comments on why transports may sound different.

I believe the use of RAM in the way you describe has been tried, most notably here.

To be really effective you would have to ditch the real time 'read once' cd mechs for a 'multi read' computer drive but as you say this is getting so close to ripping as to be pointless

So is this player not doing the same thing as a hard drive, or am I missing something.

 

[Gazzip]

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/amplifiers/75-amp-tests/150-sensitivity.html

Two CDPs with 2Vrms will sound the same in a double blind test. Two CDPs, one with 2Vrms and other with 2.3Vrms may sound differently, the later being louder. The amplifier will go louder sooner on the volume knob and give the impression of more power, clarity, transparency, musicality, PRaT, and all that mambo that no engineer can measure.

I'm merely speculating the part that a CDP needs to be built better to have the capability to push extra clean Vrms. For 0.3Vrms extra it sounds a bit unlikely. Copper chassis, Digital and Analogue separated PSU, full box of branded electronics etc. all make a good photo show and a heavy box. Without that the magic won't happen.

Resolution is same for both cheap and expensive CDP. It's 16bit/44.1kHz. Or is there other special resolution?

A nice lump of SSD storage would be great in a CD player. (It needn't be very big.) It would make the struggle with 'iffy' CDs easier than the usual 'on the fly' / best efforts corrections. A half-way house between ripping a CD and playing a CD. It would mean the mechanism could slow down and retry - when necessary - without the 'reservoir' emptying and speed up when no errors are detected to fill the 'tank' again.

Small capacity SSDs are really cheap now. (£20 for a 32GB). I don't think it should add much to the price a sub £500 CD player.

In fact what I am talking about could probably be done with RAM for far less money.

Obviously you could just rip all your CDs, error free, to lossless ALAC / FLAC files, but some people will always insist on a CD player that plays physical media that they can touch and sniff or whatever people do. (Just don't tell them there is a full-blown ripping to SSD/RAM operation going on inside and they'll never know or care.)

that is exactly what Chord Electronics do with their CDP's.....

 

[davedotco]

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/amplifiers/75-amp-tests/150-sensitivity.html

Two CDPs with 2Vrms will sound the same in a double blind test. Two CDPs, one with 2Vrms and other with 2.3Vrms may sound differently, the later being louder. The amplifier will go louder sooner on the volume knob and give the impression of more power, clarity, transparency, musicality, PRaT, and all that mambo that no engineer can measure.

I'm merely speculating the part that a CDP needs to be built better to have the capability to push extra clean Vrms. For 0.3Vrms extra it sounds a bit unlikely. Copper chassis, Digital and Analogue separated PSU, full box of branded electronics etc. all make a good photo show and a heavy box. Without that the magic won't happen.

Resolution is same for both cheap and expensive CDP. It's 16bit/44.1kHz. Or is there other special resolution?

A nice lump of SSD storage would be great in a CD player. (It needn't be very big.) It would make the struggle with 'iffy' CDs easier than the usual 'on the fly' / best efforts corrections. A half-way house between ripping a CD and playing a CD. It would mean the mechanism could slow down and retry - when necessary - without the 'reservoir' emptying and speed up when no errors are detected to fill the 'tank' again.

Small capacity SSDs are really cheap now. (£20 for a 32GB). I don't think it should add much to the price a sub £500 CD player.

In fact what I am talking about could probably be done with RAM for far less money.

Obviously you could just rip all your CDs, error free, to lossless ALAC / FLAC files, but some people will always insist on a CD player that plays physical media that they can touch and sniff or whatever people do. (Just don't tell them there is a full-blown ripping to SSD/RAM operation going on inside and they'll never know or care.)

that is exactly what Chord Electronics do with their CDP's.....

Many players and dacs do. But this is only a part of the problem.

Such techniques cannot correct for data that has been miss-read by a 'real time' cd drive, the only solution to this is to use multi-pass computer drives and a supstantial RAM/SSD chip. Chord and most (all?) cd manufacturers use a conventional cd mech, ie read once only.

This is why, done correctly Ripping is inherently superior to direct CD playback.

 

[Overdose]

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/amplifiers/75-amp-tests/150-sensitivity.html

Two CDPs with 2Vrms will sound the same in a double blind test. Two CDPs, one with 2Vrms and other with 2.3Vrms may sound differently, the later being louder. The amplifier will go louder sooner on the volume knob and give the impression of more power, clarity, transparency, musicality, PRaT, and all that mambo that no engineer can measure.

I'm merely speculating the part that a CDP needs to be built better to have the capability to push extra clean Vrms. For 0.3Vrms extra it sounds a bit unlikely. Copper chassis, Digital and Analogue separated PSU, full box of branded electronics etc. all make a good photo show and a heavy box. Without that the magic won't happen.

Resolution is same for both cheap and expensive CDP. It's 16bit/44.1kHz. Or is there other special resolution?

A nice lump of SSD storage would be great in a CD player. (It needn't be very big.) It would make the struggle with 'iffy' CDs easier than the usual 'on the fly' / best efforts corrections. A half-way house between ripping a CD and playing a CD. It would mean the mechanism could slow down and retry - when necessary - without the 'reservoir' emptying and speed up when no errors are detected to fill the 'tank' again.

Small capacity SSDs are really cheap now. (£20 for a 32GB). I don't think it should add much to the price a sub £500 CD player.

In fact what I am talking about could probably be done with RAM for far less money.

Obviously you could just rip all your CDs, error free, to lossless ALAC / FLAC files, but some people will always insist on a CD player that plays physical media that they can touch and sniff or whatever people do. (Just don't tell them there is a full-blown ripping to SSD/RAM operation going on inside and they'll never know or care.)

that is exactly what Chord Electronics do with their CDP's.....

I think most CD players from all manufacturers incorporate some sort of buffering and error correction, even cheap DVD players.

 

[davedotco]

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/amplifiers/75-amp-tests/150-sensitivity.html

Two CDPs with 2Vrms will sound the same in a double blind test. Two CDPs, one with 2Vrms and other with 2.3Vrms may sound differently, the later being louder. The amplifier will go louder sooner on the volume knob and give the impression of more power, clarity, transparency, musicality, PRaT, and all that mambo that no engineer can measure.

I'm merely speculating the part that a CDP needs to be built better to have the capability to push extra clean Vrms. For 0.3Vrms extra it sounds a bit unlikely. Copper chassis, Digital and Analogue separated PSU, full box of branded electronics etc. all make a good photo show and a heavy box. Without that the magic won't happen.

Resolution is same for both cheap and expensive CDP. It's 16bit/44.1kHz. Or is there other special resolution?

A nice lump of SSD storage would be great in a CD player. (It needn't be very big.) It would make the struggle with 'iffy' CDs easier than the usual 'on the fly' / best efforts corrections. A half-way house between ripping a CD and playing a CD. It would mean the mechanism could slow down and retry - when necessary - without the 'reservoir' emptying and speed up when no errors are detected to fill the 'tank' again.

Small capacity SSDs are really cheap now. (£20 for a 32GB). I don't think it should add much to the price a sub £500 CD player.

In fact what I am talking about could probably be done with RAM for far less money.

Obviously you could just rip all your CDs, error free, to lossless ALAC / FLAC files, but some people will always insist on a CD player that plays physical media that they can touch and sniff or whatever people do. (Just don't tell them there is a full-blown ripping to SSD/RAM operation going on inside and they'll never know or care.)

This is kind of what I was getting at with my earlier comments on why transports may sound different.

I believe the use of RAM in the way you describe has been tried, most notably here.

To be really effective you would have to ditch the real time 'read once' cd mechs for a 'multi read' computer drive but as you say this is getting so close to ripping as to be pointless

So is this player not doing the same thing as a hard drive, or am I missing something.

In the case of the PS Audio PFT, the drive is a computer drive, ie a multi-pass hi spead drive that virtually eliminates data errors, the RAM/SSD is, in effect a buffer.

This is the only player I know that uses such a drive in this way, thoufg I am not at all up to date with CD player developement.

 

[chebby]

So is this player not doing the same thing as a hard drive, or am I missing something.

Yes, but fans of the 'traditional' CD player (to whom ripping and playing files from an HD is anathema) will accept it because it looks and acts like a CD player. They can still enjoy all that physical media 'tactility' and 'ownership' of the music (and sleevenotes etc.) and be blissfully ignorant - or in blissful denial - that their machine is actually playing a ripped file from an SSD.

 

[Vladimir]

What I personally found inherently superior earlier this spring was chucking 3 fully working CD players in the bin.