We would usually recommend spending more on the CD than the amp or speakers. Is this good advice?

[MajorFubar]

is a streamer better than a cd player? I have these higher settings on my dac and im wondering how i access them? If i plugged a streamer into it? Would i get higher setting? On cd dac says 44.1 on optical it says 48..from tv (youtube)

Streamers don't necessarily sound better, or worse, at the end of the day it's all about the quality of the electronics, but equally ignore the people who tell you a streamer is always going to sound worse than a CD player because ripped CDs can't sound as good as originals. That is just rubbish, and is mis-information from anachronistic bygone times when the sound quality of a taped CD or record was clearly never going to sound as good as the CD or record, because the sound quality of analogue recordings decreases with each successive generation away from the master.

The optical-in which says 48kHz is probably intended for the digital output from a TV which is 48kHz, not 44.1.

Hope that helps

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Buy the best source possible is what I'd recommend.....don't scrimp in this area.

Be it analog or digital - poor amp and poor speakers can sound 'nice' with a good source.

Poor source with a poor amp and poor speakers will just sound poor.

Better amps and speakers will also sound much better with a good source.

A poor source will just strangle any quality -making any investment in decent kit a waste.

The advise is good.

Lol. He's at it again. Don't bite people.

What's there to bite?

Seriously, I'm sitting here trying to workout how you lot can disagree with the advise given to the OP.

A Audiolab 8200CD with a marantz 6005 with Dali1 speakers will work better than a Marantz cd6005 on a Hegel 360 with ATC 1xxx (some good ones).....

What's there to argue?

sorry, but you talk ****

Lol......

No do better than that, try stringing a sentence together, c'mon explain the sh#t to me.......

Allow me to try. Comparatively speaking there's so little difference between the sound from a £20 Matsui DVD player from Argos and a £1,000 CD player that the money is better invested in another part of the system that makes a bigger difference, firstly the speakers then the amp. Bear in mind I'm not really suggesting he buys a £20 DVD player from Argos instead of at least a half decent CD player, just exaggerating the issue for sake of example. If we were talking turntables and not digital sources, your advice would probably be bang on the money, but digital levelled the playing field so much the rule books got torn up.

You keep coming back to the same place Major.

We did this a few weeks back......remember more sophisticated innards etc........

The field is not level. Wish you'd stop persisting with this myth......

 

[lpv]

is a streamer better than a cd player? I have these higher settings on my dac and im wondering how i access them? If i plugged a streamer into it? Would i get higher setting? On cd dac says 44.1 on optical it says 48..from tv (youtube)

Streamers don't necessarily sound better, or worse, at the end of the day it's all about the quality of the electronics, but equally ignore the people who tell you a streamer is always going to sound worse than a CD player because ripped CDs can't sound as good as originals. That is just rubbish, and is mis-information from anachronistic bygone times when the sound quality of a taped CD or record was clearly never going to sound as good as the CD or record, because the sound quality of analogue recordings decreases with each successive generation away from the master.

The optical-in which says 48kHz is probably intended for the digital output from a TV which is 48kHz, not 44.1.

Hope that helps

dare to explain the highlighted, please?

 

[tonky]

A decent streamer sounds every bit as good as a decent cd player - in my (limited) experience

tonky

 

[lpv]

or wait.. am I reading this correct?*sad*

 

[MajorFubar]

is a streamer better than a cd player? I have these higher settings on my dac and im wondering how i access them? If i plugged a streamer into it? Would i get higher setting? On cd dac says 44.1 on optical it says 48..from tv (youtube)

Streamers don't necessarily sound better, or worse, at the end of the day it's all about the quality of the electronics, but equally ignore the people who tell you a streamer is always going to sound worse than a CD player because ripped CDs can't sound as good as originals. That is just rubbish, and is mis-information from anachronistic bygone times when the sound quality of a taped CD or record was clearly never going to sound as good as the CD or record, because the sound quality of analogue recordings decreases with each successive generation away from the master.

The optical-in which says 48kHz is probably intended for the digital output from a TV which is 48kHz, not 44.1.

Hope that helps

dare to explain the highlighted, please?

Gladly. Some people say ripped CDs can't ever sound as good as the originals, and therefore a streamer is never going to sound as good as CD player because the streamer is inevitably playing a copy. Just pointing out that's a load of hogwash.

 

[MajorFubar]

or wait.. am I reading this correct?*sad*

Yeah I think you misread me, you thought I was one of the tools telling you ripped CDs are always going to sound worse. But don't worry, it's early/late depending on your point of view

 

[MajorFubar]

IMO Major you are doing a great service to this forum and its members. Your words may be wasted on Thompson but I asure you other learning eyes are reading and benefit from them.

And I love how chebby disenchants Linn & Naim myths and constructs. He is very good at it. When I do it I come off as a wacko conspiracy hater. Zero talent in delivery, c'est moi.

LOL! Thanks. I also think you do yourself a disservice. Your grasp of what to you is a second language is quite amazing really, and your narratives commonly have far better eloquence than those of most native speakers born here.

 

[Vladimir]

IMO Major you are doing a great service to this forum and its members. Your words may be wasted on Thompson but I asure you other learning eyes are reading and benefit from them.

And I love how chebby disenchants Linn & Naim myths and constructs. He is very good at it. When I do it I come off as a conspiracy wacko hater. Zero talent in delivery, c'est moi.

 

[MajorFubar]

You keep coming back to the same place Major.

Sorry it's in my nature to try to give people accurate information, or at least as accurate as my own knowledge allows it to be. Not everyone has read my previous posts.

We did this a few weeks back......remember more sophisticated innards etc........

I didn't say there was no difference, you just chose to read it that way, but if you think 'more sophisticated innards' in a digital source makes as much difference as spending twice the money on better speakers then that information is misguided.

The field is not level. Wish you'd stop persisting with this myth......

I've never said the field was completely level, that's implying all digital sources sound the same. What I was trying to explain to you, and it looks like I failed again, is that spending more and more money on a digital source is the least cost-effective way of increasing the sound quality of your HiFi, the same money is often better spent on speakers or amp. Sure if you already got £3k speakers and amp combo but a £150 CD player, go right ahead and invest. It's about balance.

 

[lpv]

or wait.. am I reading this correct?*sad*

Yeah I think you misread me, you thought I was one of the tools telling you ripped CDs are always going to sound worse. But don't worry, it's early/late depending on your point of view

I misread you.. sorted.

No mention in this debate about preamps.. and there's good reason for it I think - preamps becoming/ are thing of the legacy audio.. with equaly good digital sources able to output 2v all we need is a passive volume control straight to power amp or actives.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

You keep coming back to the same place Major.

Sorry it's in my nature to try to give people accurate information, or at least as accurate as my own knowledge allows it to be. Not everyone has read my previous posts.

We did this a few weeks back......remember more sophisticated innards etc........

I didn't say there was no difference, you just chose to read it that way, but if you think 'more sophisticated innards' in a digital source makes as much difference as spending twice the money on better speakers then that information is misguided.

The field is not level. Wish you'd stop persisting with this myth......

I've never said the field was completely level, that's implying all digital sources sound the same. What I was trying to explain to you, and it looks like I failed again, is that spending more and more money on a digital source is the least cost-effective way of increasing the sound quality of your HiFi, the same money is better spent on speakers or amp. Unless your pockets are so deep you don't have to worry about rationing your budget.

Thats the problem though your information is not accurate....well only in your own head....and it seems Vlad likes you...... *PARDON*

Explain the reasoning behind throwing more money at speakers if the quality of your source is poor?

Example

Say you still use tape cassette circa 1994 - all your tapes are now hissing louder than a sack of snakes - some are warbling like they're under water. The quality has degraded.

How is spending a fortune on speakers or even amp going to improve things if your source is this tape deck.

The only real way to improve the quality of any system IS to improve the quality of the source.

Its like going from short wave radio to FM on a tiny cheap transistor radio....how can I explain this really simply......you know I'll be proven right...... right?

Get the base right and it starts with the source.

 

[Vladimir]

Audiophiles auditioning hi-fi in their (our) hunt for better sound remind me of dowsers and pigeons (begin watching at 25min).

 

[ID.]

You keep coming back to the same place Major.

Sorry it's in my nature to try to give people accurate information, or at least as accurate as my own knowledge allows it to be. Not everyone has read my previous posts.

We did this a few weeks back......remember more sophisticated innards etc........

I didn't say there was no difference, you just chose to read it that way, but if you think 'more sophisticated innards' in a digital source makes as much difference as spending twice the money on better speakers then that information is misguided.

The field is not level. Wish you'd stop persisting with this myth......

I've never said the field was completely level, that's implying all digital sources sound the same. What I was trying to explain to you, and it looks like I failed again, is that spending more and more money on a digital source is the least cost-effective way of increasing the sound quality of your HiFi, the same money is better spent on speakers or amp. Unless your pockets are so deep you don't have to worry about rationing your budget.

Thats the problem though your information is not accurate....well only in your own head....and it seems Vlad likes you...... *PARDON*

Explain the reasoning behind throwing more money at speakers if the quality of your source is poor?

Example

Say you still use tape cassette circa 1994 - all your tapes are now hissing louder than a sack of snakes - some are warbling like they're under water. The quality has degraded.

How is spending a fortune on speakers or even amp going to improve things if your source is this tape deck.

The only real way to improve the quality of any system IS to improve the quality of the source.

Its like going from short wave radio to FM on a tiny cheap transistor radio....how can I explain this really simply......you know I'll be proven right...... right?

Get the base right and it starts with the source.

no, your examples aren't right because they are analogue. In digital sources the differences are much smaller, so in terms of improving the sound you'll get a much bigger difference from doubling what you spend on the speakers than you will from doubling what you spend on a DIGITAL source.

But, I think I've lost the game by being trolled into replying to Thompson again.

"sophisticated innards" LOL you are the master

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Wow. How to set the analogue cat among the digital pigeons.

People ought to rethink how they define HiFi.

In everything else we use latest tech and techniques to achieve optimum results.

For some unfathomable reason this model of source, analogue amp and 2 speakers remain.

To get HiFi you need 5.1 speakers minimum, and a an amp that has digital processing in the time as well as amplitude domain across all frequencies.

I am, though a round earther, where high fidelity means exactly that. Sound that is true to the original. I want to hear every detail and nuance and favour that over house sound of each esoteric brand.

 

[orange]

I am in the process of upgrading my system and during exchanges with various dealers one stated the line above. This was a bit of a surprise to me what do others think?

Chris

How often will you actually use the CD player?

I bought a nice old(er) school Rotel RCD-1072 a few years back for less than half of mrsp new, but I am currently using it mostly for as a transport as everything goes though my DacMagic. I play CDs 5% of the time and stream of my MacBook the other 95% because it's 2016 and I am sick of scratching CDs and buying multiple copies

I'd rather dump money into speakers, amp and dac personally.

 

[prospero108]

Goodness, looks like I well and truly lit the blue touch paper with this one. Thanks for all the replies, some interesting stuff. To be fair to the dealer who said this he also said that digital is the way to go.

It doesn't change my plan of upgrading amp and speakers before source but that is a financial restriction rather more than anything else.

Always fun on this forum. Thank you

Chris

 

[ID.]

Wow. How to set the analogue cat among the digital pigeons.

People ought to rethink how they define HiFi.

In everything else we use latest tech and techniques to achieve optimum results.

For some unfathomable reason this model of source, analogue amp and 2 speakers remain.

To get HiFi you need 5.1 speakers minimum, and a an amp that has digital processing in the time as well as amplitude domain across all frequencies.

I am, though a round earther, where high fidelity means exactly that. Sound that is true to the original. I want to hear every detail and nuance and favour that over house sound of each esoteric brand.

why stop at 5.1? I'd demand at lest 9.2.

 

[lindsayt]

Thompsonuxb, what makes you think you can't buy a relatively good sounding CD player for £15?

What makes you think I think that?

Fact is he may well buy a 'good' CDplayer for that but he'll get a far better one for 250quid Better still 500quid and so on.

But this argument is really silly if everyone is suggesting a basic player/source is all you need for 'real' hi fidelity playback.

The fact is the old 'rubbish in rubbish out' IS still valid.

So which actual CD players have you compared against each other?

Also, bear in mind that due to so many people moving to streaming solutions there's a glut of 2nd hand CD players. And if you go for one with a minor fault that doesn't affect sound quality - eg a sticky tray button - you can pick up a CD player that would have cost several hundred quid for £15.

And please, I don't want to get into the debate of "you can't compare 2nd hand to new". I live in the real world, and try to give my advice based on what's happening in the real world - which is what any dealer that truly has their customers best interests at heart would do too.

 

[Diamond Joe]

From a turntable & tonearm manufacturer ...

Vinyl based Replay

Turntable 23%

Tonearm 18%

Cartridge 5%

Phono Stage 25%

Amplifiers 15%

Speakers 15%

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this add up to 101%? and what about cables?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

You keep coming back to the same place Major.

Sorry it's in my nature to try to give people accurate information, or at least as accurate as my own knowledge allows it to be. Not everyone has read my previous posts.

We did this a few weeks back......remember more sophisticated innards etc........

I didn't say there was no difference, you just chose to read it that way, but if you think 'more sophisticated innards' in a digital source makes as much difference as spending twice the money on better speakers then that information is misguided.

The field is not level. Wish you'd stop persisting with this myth......

I've never said the field was completely level, that's implying all digital sources sound the same. What I was trying to explain to you, and it looks like I failed again, is that spending more and more money on a digital source is the least cost-effective way of increasing the sound quality of your HiFi, the same money is better spent on speakers or amp. Unless your pockets are so deep you don't have to worry about rationing your budget.

Thats the problem though your information is not accurate....well only in your own head....and it seems Vlad likes you...... *PARDON*

Explain the reasoning behind throwing more money at speakers if the quality of your source is poor?

Example

Say you still use tape cassette circa 1994 - all your tapes are now hissing louder than a sack of snakes - some are warbling like they're under water. The quality has degraded.

How is spending a fortune on speakers or even amp going to improve things if your source is this tape deck.

The only real way to improve the quality of any system IS to improve the quality of the source.

Its like going from short wave radio to FM on a tiny cheap transistor radio....how can I explain this really simply......you know I'll be proven right...... right?

Get the base right and it starts with the source.

?

no, your examples aren't right because they are analogue. In digital sources the differences are much smaller, so in terms of improving the sound you'll get a much bigger difference from doubling what you spend on the speakers than you will from doubling what you spend on a DIGITAL source.?

?

But, I think I've lost the game by being trolled into replying to Thompson again.

"sophisticated innards" LOL  you are the master ?

?

 

Naaah id, you've lost the game because you are wrong...... :-D

Digital sources are not all equal nor are cdplayers - it's pointless buying better speakers that'll only tell you just how bad your source material is......

 

[Frank Harvey]

I've only skimmed through the thread, so apologies if I'm repeating anything already said.

I'm sure most of us would agree that the source isn't irrelevant, therefore the source is still important. What sort of budget you should set aside for the source is up for discussion though, as it depends on the overall capabilities of the system, and what is needed to keep in line with the quality of the electronics and speakers.

It is certainly true that analogue front ends are worth spending more on, as the engineering of a turntable has a direct effect on the overall quality the system will be able to reproduce (regardless of the amp and speakers).

Whilst there are smaller perceivable differences between digital sources than between analogue sources, a better quality digital source still makes a difference, although whether everyone can hear that difference comes back to my own theory about how people listen to music/systems. Having said that, my own personal experiences over the past few years has shown there can be pretty big differences to be had between how well a system can reproduce digital media. Why this difference is present is up for debate as many will hold the view that there is no differences between different DACs, but any digital source still has an analogue output stage, and even if DACs don't make a difference (I believe they do from general listening), the quality of the analogue output stage certainly will.

Just for the record - by source, I'm not only referring to CD players and streamers with integral DACs, as well as turntables, but also amplifiers or pre-amplifiers with an integral DAC which become the source by plugging in external boxes digitally (as in my own system).

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Goodness, looks like I well and truly lit the blue touch paper with this one. Thanks for all the replies, some interesting stuff. To be fair to the dealer who said this he also said that digital is the way to go.

It doesn't change my plan of upgrading amp and speakers before source but that is a financial restriction rather more than anything else.

Always fun on this forum. Thank you

Chris

Again, the advise your dealer gave was good!

Which ever source type you use, buy the best you can afford - do not scrimp on the source.

It's not all equal!

 

[steve_1979]

From a turntable & tonearm manufacturer ...

Vinyl based Replay

Turntable 23%

Tonearm 18%

Cartridge 5%

Phono Stage 25%

Amplifiers 15%

Speakers 15%

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this add up to 101%? and what about cables?

The first rule of buying HiFi equipment is that you always end up spending more than what you budgeted for.

 

[matt49]

Whilst there are smaller perceivable differences between digital sources than between analogue sources, a better quality digital source still makes a difference, although whether everyone can hear that difference comes back to my own theory about how people listen to music/systems.

David, what factors need to be in place for someone to be able to hear these differences?