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

[MajorFubar]

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

I have, countless times. The differences between different digital sources are comparatively small compared to the differences between analoge sources, such as the cassette deck you quoted in your irrelevant example. Therefore, if you've at least got a half decent CD player, more often than not it represents better value for money to spend your money elsewhere, such as on better amps and speakers. That doesn't mean you won't get some improvement by buying a CD player twice the price, just that the potential improvement will be comparatively small compared to buying eg speakers at twice the price..

I can't write it in a simpler way. You either purposefully refuse to understand the simple logic of it, or you are a troll. Which is it.

 

[Frank Harvey]

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?

It's off topic really, and it's not really a set of factors, more how people listen. I've mentioned it before a few times.

 

[ID.]

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

I have, countless times. The differences between different digital sources are comparatively small compared to the differences between analoge sources, such as the cassette deck you quoted in your irrelevant example. Therefore, if you've at least got a half decent CD player, more often than not it represents better value for money to spend your money elsewhere, such as on better amps and speakers. That doesn't mean you won't get some improvement by buying a CD player twice the price, just that the improvement will be comparatively small compared to buying eg speakers at twice the price..

I can't write it in a simpler way. You either purposefully refuse to understand the simple logic of it, or you are a troll. Which is it.

Nope, because sophisticated innards and garbage in garbage out. If pressed I can probably come up with more meaningless slogans of fewer than five words that completely ignore the points anyone makes, and if necessary some analogies that are completely meaningless in the situation.

See it's like a car, think of the source as the engine, and the speakers like the tires. Putting expensive tires on your Hyundai hatchback won't make it perform much better, so you need to spend the money on something with a good engine. i.e. The CD player. Once you have that, any fit for purpose tires will be sufficient to get the power to the road. Also, think of the speaker cable like the transmission. You need to ensure you have something well engineered to make use of the source, so don't scrimp on your cables. Remember though, everything in the chain makes a difference, so don't forget the fluffy dice or bobble head doll. Remember, like driving, listening to music has to be about fun.

 

[MajorFubar]

'garbage in, garbage out' was a very true idiom, technically it's still not wrong, but digital raised the bottom line so much that there's really no such thing as garbage any more in the digital domain. Plug a decent £100 pair of headphones into an iPod and you're getting sound quality that is leagues ahead of that from 'stereos' and midi systems from a generation ago.

 

[Vladimir]

I liked "what's the big deal" Thompson better. Very hippy and cool, like hash and scented candles. He didn't mind loudness compression or horendeusly bad production in his choice of music. He didn't mind what CDP or speakers or anything and kept asking why are we all so angry, everyone's kit is relatively amazing and music is wonderufull.

Why did he switch to this Ivor Thompsonbrun chap? Problems at home, work, stress? I hope it sorts out.

 

[ID.]

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?

It's off topic really, and it's not really a set of factors, more how people listen. I've mentioned it before a few times.

Apologies, but would you mind recapping? I know I've read it before but the specifics escape me.

Personal experience is that there are differences, but not that massive and I'm prepared to accept that they would be even harder to pick if volume matching were carried out.

Personal philosophy is that one should get a speaker suited to the room, and in terms of equipment the speaker and amp pairing is most important. Then again I tend to think of the amp as the heart of the system. Analogue sources deserve the money spent on them, but the differences are much, much smaller for digital sources.

Listening style, well I guess I often listen in a way that could be accused of listening to the system rather than the music. Listening to how sounds are reproduced and produced as much as the tune at times. Maybe tops habit from listening to ambient and similar styles of electronic music that don't really have a tune, rhythm, melody, etc.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Apologies, but would you mind recapping? I know I've read it before but the specifics escape me.

I've always tried to work out why some hear a difference and some don't. Much of it could be down to your mood on the day of auditioning, and some music does show differences more so than others. Many people tend to compare tonal balance only. Another aspect I thought about a lot was the way in which people listen, and what they actually listen to. This came about because of the discussions I've seen on threads about films, specifically regarding the quality of picture.

Analogy time. When someone watches a film, they generally tend to concentrate on what is immediately in front of them - the actors talking for example, and don't always pay attention to what is going on in the background. This isn't so much of an issue for films as usually what you need to concentrate is in the foreground anyway, but many people don't look at the big picture, so to speak. It is relevant though to those who can't see the increase in detail for Bluray over DVD. Anything up close to the camera will look good on Bluray or DVD, but as the subject gets further and further away from the camera, the difference between the two formats becomes blatantly obvious. This loss of detail is mainly due to the level of compression used for the DVD format, and can be easily seen when viewing landscapes or cityscapes ocassionally present in films. On Bluray there's plenty of detail, but on the DVD it all looks a bit mushy and lacking definition. The problem is that when people compare DVD and Bluray, they're generally looking at objects that are close to the screen, the objects we are supposed to be focusing on. As I say, close objects on DVD do actually look quite good, and it is then harder to appreciate the difference between the two formats. I haven't seen No Country For Old Men on DVD, but I'm guessing it would be a good disc to show the differences between the two formats.

It think it is possibly the same with music. People concentrate on what is immediately presented to them in the soundfield being reproduced by the speakers, and therefore ignore a lot of other information, including spatial information and what is going on behind that initial wall of sound.

 

[Frank Harvey]

There should be three paragraphs in there - site issue presumably.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I liked "what's the big deal" Thompson better. Very hippy and cool, like hash and scented candles. He didn't mind loudness compression or horendeusly bad production in his choice of music. He didn't mind what CDP or speakers or anything and kept asking why are we all so angry, everyone's kit is relatively amazing and music is wonderufull.?

Why did he switch to this Ivor Thompsonbrun chap? Problems at home, work, stress? I hope it sorts out.

Vlad..... You make the mistake that I care what YOU like.....

You're only upset because on this I am so right and the more you think about it the more painfully obvious it becomes causing stomach pains and nausia..... Just breath deeply relax.....it'll pass..... *ROFL*

 

[Vladimir]

I just let it marinate, it will come clear.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

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.

Ok..... It started out on a bright but cold day, the chill in the air causing....... What's that you say?..... getonwithituwindbag.

Actually I'd read this post and replied to it earlier before it was written..... My powers they grow..... *dirol*

Buying expensive used at sensible prices is very good advise......

My comparisons - first player used on a full sized amp the Sony Walkman D-ej835 via 3mm to phono - sounded fine. Very capable portable.

Moved on to the Marantz cd63 - louder output but a more solid detailed fuller sound a more 3d soundstage to it. just the source change - may have been expectation bias....lol.... no, it constantly delivered a better image than the Walkman.

Then had a budget Technics player (sister in-laws) on test, from their 'Brown' period 'a scritchy' and unsophisticated sound by comparison to the cd63.

Then a Sherwood for my sister that one was really poor sounding. Felt so bad I bought it for her with her money I gave her my Pioneer 505 DVD player to replace it or watch movies. It was better.

Still with the cd63 It was about this time I bought the ax-620 which had a built in DAC and digital inputs - the sound with standard RCA was good - with Coax, stunning (at the time).

Such was the improvement I started to dabble with interconnects, couldn't fathom the improvement from such a simple swap nor the differences heard between interconnects. Never felt the need to change kit again.

Then the NAD c660 twice the cost of the cd63 surprisingly refined well defined sound images leaving the speakers clean - clear out into the room better than the Marantz - psychoinsertwhatyouwill. .... No, again consistently sounding better.....

Not moved on to soft devices don't like the sound - bias?....in this case, Maybe!

 

[Covenanter]

I guess I ought to think all CD players sound the same but experience indicates that I would be wrong. I could hear significant differences when I auditioned, although I accept all the usual stuff about level matching and expectation bias. Like most people I haven't got the resources to do scientific auditions.

I am much more skeptical about amplifiers although again I thought I could hear differences. I suspect that as long as the amp is man enough to drive the speakers to the levels you want without strain then you will be fine and differences will be minimal.

I've always thought that speakers are the key part of any system as they are the things that convert electrical signals into sound. This is where you will get the biggest gain. This doesn't mean however that you have to spend a lot of money here because IMO far and away the most important factor is synergy, i.e. how well do the components work together. Three modest components with good synergy will outperform three expensive components which don't have synergy.

Chris

PS Cynical me says that a dealer who says you should spend more on X has an expensive X they want to sell!

 

[ID.]

Apologies, but would you mind recapping? I know I've read it before but the specifics escape me.

I've always tried to work out why some hear a difference and some don't. Much of it could be down to your mood on the day of auditioning, and some music does show differences more so than others. Many people tend to compare tonal balance only. Another aspect I thought about a lot was the way in which people listen, and what they actually listen to. This came about because of the discussions I've seen on threads about films, specifically regarding the quality of picture.

Analogy time. When someone watches a film, they generally tend to concentrate on what is immediately in front of them - the actors talking for example, and don't always pay attention to what is going on in the background. This isn't so much of an issue for films as usually what you need to concentrate is in the foreground anyway, but many people don't look at the big picture, so to speak. It is relevant though to those who can't see the increase in detail for Bluray over DVD. Anything up close to the camera will look good on Bluray or DVD, but as the subject gets further and further away from the camera, the difference between the two formats becomes blatantly obvious. This loss of detail is mainly due to the level of compression used for the DVD format, and can be easily seen when viewing landscapes or cityscapes ocassionally present in films. On Bluray there's plenty of detail, but on the DVD it all looks a bit mushy and lacking definition. The problem is that when people compare DVD and Bluray, they're generally looking at objects that are close to the screen, the objects we are supposed to be focusing on. As I say, close objects on DVD do actually look quite good, and it is then harder to appreciate the difference between the two formats. I haven't seen No Country For Old Men on DVD, but I'm guessing it would be a good disc to show the differences between the two formats.

It think it is possibly the same with music. People concentrate on what is immediately presented to them in the soundfield being reproduced by the speakers, and therefore ignore a lot of other information, including spatial information and what is going on behind that initial wall of sound.

Cheers. Kind of what I thought.

I haven't tried out bluray yet, but I recall the DVD of Bladerunner being terrible, particularly how the smoke and haze was handled. Now not sure whether that is something inherent to DVD and it's shortcomings or just noise in a crappy conversion. Must watch the Bluray at some point.

 

[chebby]

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?

You edited out the link I provided to Origin Live who were the source of that quote. I refer any errors to them.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

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

I have, countless times. The differences between different digital sources are comparatively small compared to the differences between analoge sources, such as the cassette deck you quoted in your irrelevant example. Therefore, if you've at least got a half decent CD player, more often than not it represents better value for money to spend your money elsewhere, such as on better amps and speakers. That doesn't mean you won't get some improvement by buying a CD player twice the price, just that the potential improvement will be comparatively small compared to buying eg speakers at twice the price..

I can't write it in a simpler way. You either purposefully refuse to understand the simple logic of it, or you are a troll. Which is it. 

Missed this.....troll! ...me?

Now I know I'm right on this and you know I'm right too Major.... Just admit it to yourself and move on......

Read David@ contributions to this thread

 

[ID.]

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

I have, countless times. The differences between different digital sources are comparatively small compared to the differences between analoge sources, such as the cassette deck you quoted in your irrelevant example. Therefore, if you've at least got a half decent CD player, more often than not it represents better value for money to spend your money elsewhere, such as on better amps and speakers. That doesn't mean you won't get some improvement by buying a CD player twice the price, just that the potential improvement will be comparatively small compared to buying eg speakers at twice the price..

I can't write it in a simpler way. You either purposefully refuse to understand the simple logic of it, or you are a troll. Which is it.

Missed this.....troll! ...me?

Now I know I'm right on this and you know I'm right too Major.... Just admit it to yourself and move on......

Read David@ contributions to this thread

David's posts are in line with the Major's view, and the majority view, that for modern systems with a digital source the differences are far less and that the greatest differences will be found in the speakers. Major does not assert that all digital sources sound the same so I don't interpret there being a significant difference in his position and David's other than quibbling over just how much of a difference there is.

 

[ID.]

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.

Ok..... It started out on a bright but cold day, the chill in the air causing....... What's that you say?..... getonwithituwindbag.

Actually I'd read this post and replied to it earlier before it was written..... My powers they grow..... *dirol*

Buying expensive used at sensible prices is very good advise......

My comparisons - first player used on a full sized amp the Sony Walkman D-ej835 via 3mm to phono - sounded fine. Very capable portable.

Moved on to the Marantz cd63 - louder output but a more solid detailed fuller sound a more 3d soundstage to it. just the source change - may have been expectation bias....lol.... no, it constantly delivered a better image than the Walkman.

Then had a budget Technics player (sister in-laws) on test, from their 'Brown' period 'a scritchy' and unsophisticated sound by comparison to the cd63.

Then a Sherwood for my sister that one was really poor sounding. Felt so bad I bought it for her with her money I gave her my Pioneer 505 DVD player to replace it or watch movies. It was better.

Still with the cd63 It was about this time I bought the ax-620 which had a built in DAC and digital inputs - the sound with standard RCA was good - with Coax, stunning (at the time).

Such was the improvement I started to dabble with interconnects, couldn't fathom the improvement from such a simple swap nor the differences heard between interconnects. Never felt the need to change kit again.

Then the NAD c660 twice the cost of the cd63 surprisingly refined well defined sound images leaving the speakers clean - clear out into the room better than the Marantz - psychoinsertwhatyouwill. .... No, again consistently sounding better.....

Not moved on to soft devices don't like the sound - bias?....in this case, Maybe!

wow, think of the improvements you could've gotten by spending the majority of that money on speakers.

So basically you seem to be saying that you've only ever upgraded your CD player and interconnects, but you've been happy with the changes so that's enough for you to argue that changing the digital source and cables is most important.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I haven't tried out bluray yet, but I recall the DVD of Bladerunner being terrible, particularly how the smoke and haze was handled. Now not sure whether that is something inherent to DVD and it's shortcomings or just noise in a crappy conversion. Must watch the Bluray at some point.

Looks fantastic on Bluray. The quality of the opening scene isn't too dissimilar, but the rest of it looks amazing.

 

[MajorFubar]

Missed this.....troll! ...me?

Now I know I'm right on this and you know I'm right too Major.... Just admit it to yourself and move on......

Read David@ contributions to this thread

You'll find David and I are more or less saying the same thing. The problem is before you read anything I type you've already made a mental decision that you're going to disagree with it and either subconsciously or consciously you mentally cherry-pick parts of my posts to suit your expectaions and ignore the rest. Which is why I've already had to explain to you various times that clearly I don't believe all digital sources sound the same, just that upgrading the digital source is generally the least cost-effective way to make improvements to your HiFi, unless you've already got megabucks amps and speakers.

 

[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.

Ok..... It started out on a bright but cold day, the chill in the air causing....... What's that you say?..... getonwithituwindbag.

Actually I'd read this post and replied to it earlier before it was written..... My powers they grow..... *dirol*

Buying expensive used at sensible prices is very good advise......

My comparisons - first player used on a full sized amp the Sony Walkman D-ej835 via 3mm to phono - sounded fine. Very capable portable.

Moved on to the Marantz cd63 - louder output but a more solid detailed fuller sound a more 3d soundstage to it. just the source change - may have been expectation bias....lol.... no, it constantly delivered a better image than the Walkman.

Then had a budget Technics player (sister in-laws) on test, from their 'Brown' period 'a scritchy' and unsophisticated sound by comparison to the cd63.

Then a Sherwood for my sister that one was really poor sounding. Felt so bad I bought it for her with her money I gave her my Pioneer 505 DVD player to replace it or watch movies. It was better.

Still with the cd63 It was about this time I bought the ax-620 which had a built in DAC and digital inputs - the sound with standard RCA was good - with Coax, stunning (at the time).

Such was the improvement I started to dabble with interconnects, couldn't fathom the improvement from such a simple swap nor the differences heard between interconnects. Never felt the need to change kit again.

Then the NAD c660 twice the cost of the cd63 surprisingly refined well defined sound images leaving the speakers clean - clear out into the room better than the Marantz - psychoinsertwhatyouwill. .... No, again consistently sounding better.....

Not moved on to soft devices don't like the sound - bias?....in this case, Maybe!

wow, think of the improvements you could've gotten by spending the majority of that money on speakers.

So basically you seem to be saying that you've only ever upgraded your CD player and interconnects, but you've been happy with the changes so that's enough for you to argue that changing the digital source and cables is most important.

ID, I don't think that's a fair comment from you at all. I asked Thompsonuxb about his CD experiences, which he kindly answered.

If I'd asked him about his amplifer or speaker experiences there's every chance he would have run through a list of those too.

Looking at the 7 CD players that Thompsonuxb has experienced I can quite understand where he's coming from and why he thinks it's important to budget accordingly for the CD player. I'd probably be saying the same thing as him if I'd gone through the same 7 players as him.

On the other hand, it's quite possible that someone else could have listened to 7 (or more) completely different CD players / digital sources and come to the opposite conclusion to him. For example someone who bought some bargain 2nd hand CD player, or maybe someone with a good little inexpenisve DAC like a Beresford.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Just to clarify - the differences between digital sources are generally smaller than that of analogue sources, but there can still be quite big differences between digital sources. After adding a Chord Qute EX to Audiolab 8200AP I had at the time (about three years ago) and using it instead of the Audiolab's internal DAC, I was gobsmacked at the difference between listening to Napster via Sonos ZP90.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

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.

Ok..... It started out on a bright but cold day, the chill in the air causing....... What's that you say?..... getonwithituwindbag.

Actually I'd read this post and replied to it earlier before it was written..... My powers they grow..... *dirol*

Buying expensive used at sensible prices is very good advise......

My comparisons - first player used on a full sized amp the Sony Walkman D-ej835 via 3mm to phono - sounded fine. Very capable portable.

Moved on to the Marantz cd63 - louder output but a more solid detailed fuller sound a more 3d soundstage to it. just the source change - may have been expectation bias....lol.... no, it constantly delivered a better image than the Walkman.

Then had a budget Technics player (sister in-laws) on test, from their 'Brown' period 'a scritchy' and unsophisticated sound by comparison to the cd63.

Then a Sherwood for my sister that one was really poor sounding. Felt so bad I bought it for her with her money I gave her my Pioneer 505 DVD player to replace it or watch movies. It was better.

Still with the cd63 It was about this time I bought the ax-620 which had a built in DAC and digital inputs - the sound with standard RCA was good - with Coax, stunning (at the time).

Such was the improvement I started to dabble with interconnects, couldn't fathom the improvement from such a simple swap nor the differences heard between interconnects. Never felt the need to change kit again.

Then the NAD c660 twice the cost of the cd63 surprisingly refined well defined sound images leaving the speakers clean - clear out into the room better than the Marantz - psychoinsertwhatyouwill. .... No, again consistently sounding better.....

Not moved on to soft devices don't like the sound - bias?....in this case, Maybe!

?

wow, think of the improvements you could've gotten by spending the majority of that money on speakers.?

So basically you seem to be saying that you've only ever upgraded your CD player and interconnects, but you've been happy with the changes so that's enough for you to argue that changing the digital source and cables is most important. 

Er......no.

My amp was upgraded - I fluked into a huge improvement over my starting amp - the Yamaha ax-620, it was not even bought for stereo.

My speakers have also been upgraded from Sony 176s's to Mission 782se (at the time 5x more expensive than the 176s and notably more revealing) and I genuinely appreciated another big improvement.

The source was sorted.

 

[matt49]

I've always tried to work out why some hear a difference and some don't. Much of it could be down to your mood on the day of auditioning, and some music does show differences more so than others. Many people tend to compare tonal balance only. Another aspect I thought about a lot was the way in which people listen, and what they actually listen to. This came about because of the discussions I've seen on threads about films, specifically regarding the quality of picture.

Analogy time. When someone watches a film, they generally tend to concentrate on what is immediately in front of them - the actors talking for example, and don't always pay attention to what is going on in the background. This isn't so much of an issue for films as usually what you need to concentrate is in the foreground anyway, but many people don't look at the big picture, so to speak. It is relevant though to those who can't see the increase in detail for Bluray over DVD. Anything up close to the camera will look good on Bluray or DVD, but as the subject gets further and further away from the camera, the difference between the two formats becomes blatantly obvious. This loss of detail is mainly due to the level of compression used for the DVD format, and can be easily seen when viewing landscapes or cityscapes ocassionally present in films. On Bluray there's plenty of detail, but on the DVD it all looks a bit mushy and lacking definition. The problem is that when people compare DVD and Bluray, they're generally looking at objects that are close to the screen, the objects we are supposed to be focusing on. As I say, close objects on DVD do actually look quite good, and it is then harder to appreciate the difference between the two formats. I haven't seen No Country For Old Men on DVD, but I'm guessing it would be a good disc to show the differences between the two formats.

It think it is possibly the same with music. People concentrate on what is immediately presented to them in the soundfield being reproduced by the speakers, and therefore ignore a lot of other information, including spatial information and what is going on behind that initial wall of sound.

David, the problem with your analogy is that it implies there's something in digital audio analogous to the difference between the resolution of DVD and the resolution of Bluray. But assuming we're using 16/44.1 as our benchmark, there isn't. In digital audio there is no known way of increasing resolution beyond 16/44.1. (And before anyone says that hi-res has higher resolution: it doesn't, it just provides sound at frequencies beyond the audible range.)

I'd very much like to think there was some way in which your method for distinguishing between audio systems could actually work. My experience -- after doing a lot of ABXing of codecs etc etc -- is that the best method of distinguishing between things like digital sources is to listen through high-quality headphones (ideally electrostatics or planar magnetics). This is partly because blocking out background noise makes a significant difference to the audibility of low-level effects: precisely the kind of things that you think will make a difference.

The only aspect of digital components I've found to consistently make an audible difference is the quality of PSUs. Sometimes these differences are obviously audible in the form of background 'hash', again more easily heard through good-quality headphones than over a speaker system with its louder background noise.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Missed this.....troll! ...me?

Now I know I'm right on this and you know I'm right too Major.... Just admit it to yourself and move on......

Read David@ contributions to this thread

You'll find David and I are more or less saying the same thing. The problem is before you read anything I type you've already made a mental decision that you're going to disagree with it and either subconsciously or consciously you mentally cherry-pick parts of my posts to suit your expectaions and ignore the rest. Which is why I've already had to explain to you various times that clearly I don't believe all digital sources sound the same, just that upgrading the digital source is generally the least cost-effective way to make improvements to your HiFi, unless you've already got megabucks amps and speakers.

Major, that is not true.

I never cherry pick anything and answer your response as q whole.

The fact you are way off as little bearing on your back peddling. The thing ether sounds the same or they can be improved on.

Your 'digital is digital' is a nonesense. I've told you.

So don't come now playing the victim read David@.....

You are not saying the same thing.

 

[lpv]

Just to clarify - the differences between digital sources are generally smaller than that of analogue sources, but there can still be quite big differences between digital sources. After adding a Chord Qute EX to Audiolab 8200AP I had at the time (about three years ago) and using it instead of the Audiolab's internal DAC, I was gobsmacked at the difference between listening to Napster via Sonos ZP90.

did you equal voltages of both devices and did you level match loudness on both devices or was it pure subjective judge?