CDs help make my life a bore.

[johnwhit]

Interesting. I assume you're saying that I've made my point and my time is up whereas others haven't quite exhausted their ludicrous arguments and can carry on

What ludicrous arguments? Most of what is being said is quite rational, I was beginning to wonder whether your native language is English, no offense meant BTW.

Personally I think £300 for a CDP is a bit OTT, £200 is more like it........right I'm off to knock up another Belden mains cable

ATB,

John

[f1eng]

Structural vibration interference is likely to mask the recorded space and ambience. Most vinyl users pay great attention to effectively isolating their decks. Also note CD players are at least equally prone to the effects of structural borne vibration.

You are quite correct that structure borne vibrations mask the recorded ambience -but- since they are just a time delayed music correlated addition at a higher level than the original reverberation it -seems- that the reverberation is being "brought out".

Unless a CD player has valve output using -very- microphonic valves no CD player is anywhere near as sensitive to vibration as even the best turntables.

It is astonishingly difficult to isolate a turntable well. No "solid" plinth turntable can be well isolated, for example, and they are very much in fashion at the moment.

[Audioman]

Hi Marco,

The fact is that on a good CD player you hear pretty well wht the mastering engineer heard.
With LP there is no known way that you can.

I wish. Then we could go out spend a few hundred quid on a Cd player (as it's good enough according to Martin) and relax knowing we have the equivalent of sitting in the studio listening to our favorite artists. Great, saves all that unnecessary tweaking and swapping out equipment to get a decent sound. I think not.

Though not my favorite format I know there are good reasons why a more expensive CD player sounds superior. Better converters and components cost more and generally there is a price to pay for more sturdy casework to isolate against electrical and mechanical interference. Also a decent dedicated CD transport costs vastly more these days than an off the shelf DVD spinner. Add to that the improvement in sound is likely more in the design of the analogue stage where more sophisticated design and components are required.

A competently designed CD player at £3000 or even £1000 is going to outperform a £300 one easily. Whether a £30,000 player is much of an improvement over the £3K model is less obvious. I know Harry's Cyrus transport is well rated and has been recommended for use with other dacs. I would think his 5k set up is about where the law of diminishing returns starts bite hard so probably is a sensible maximum outlay for digital audio. However at that price level I would want SACD capability as well. Now if you spend 5K on a turntable -but I won't go there.

Paul.

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

What ludicrous arguments? Most of what is being said is quite rational, I was beginning to wonder whether your native language is English, no offense meant BTW.

Personally I think £300 for a CDP is a bit OTT, £200 is more like it........right I'm off to knock up another Belden mains cable

ATB,

John

Hi John. No need for personal insults. It's not that type of forum. I haven't insulted anyone so I would ask that you do the same. Suggesting that someone's native language isn't English is not only rude but some people might take it as being racist.

FWIW my native language is English and its actually how I earn my living.

No OFFENCE (not offense) taken.

[synsei]

Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 1000th post Harry, which hinges on you replying to this post of course

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

Done.

[johnwhit]

Hi John. No need for personal insults. It's not that type of forum. I haven't insulted anyone so I would ask that you do the same. Suggesting that someone's native language isn't English is not only rude but some people might take it as being racist.

FWIW my native language is English and its actually how I earn my living.

No OFFENCE (not offense) taken.

Sorry Harry, just having a little fun and certainly not meant as a racist comment or indeed an insult.

ATB,

John

[Marco]

Hi Frank,

Did you read my post #86, to Paul? If not, I suggest that you do, as you're missing the point, mate. Here it is: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showp...3&postcount=86

Please read the above post, so that you understand where I'm coming from, before commenting further.

I do not agree that digital recording is equally coloured, or not accurate. This is demonstrably not the case. If the input signal has a frequency content from DC to 22.1 kHz and a dynamic range of less than 16 bits it is demonstrable that the input and output analogue signals are the same. This is not a question of debate or opinion, like ones preference may be for a cartridge or SUT, it is absolutely demonstrably the case.

Technically, that may be the case, but sonically (hence why I highlighted that word earlier), when I listen and compare the best digital and analogue recordings I own, some featuring the same music, greater accuracy with the former is NOT what I hear...

This proves that the measurements you're referring to aren't telling the WHOLE story.

What I hear, in actuality (aside from wonderful sounding music), are the inherent colorations of both formats, and in terms of CD, this translates as 'digital glare' (my subjective description of the phenomenon): an artificially processed sonic signature, which to my ears is inherent in all digital music replay systems, regardless of cost.

It is, IMO, an artefact of the digital music reproduction process, and for me, not only easily identifiable, but completely absent in the best analogue recordings of the same music - and if necessary, I could easily demonstrate the effect.

Like I said, vinyl music reproduction isn't perfect either, and I can also hear what's wrong with that, some of which you've described, but when done well, it's inherent distortions, in comparison, are less annoying on the ear to most people than the 'artificially processed' sound of digital music, done well or otherwise.

For those very valid reasons, I do not consider digital music reproduction to be, sonically, automatically more accurate than its analogue counterpart. Quite simply, BOTH formats exhibit different sonic signatures, due to their individually inherent distortions/colorations, which some will 'tune into' more with recorded music than others... That is precisely why both formats have their dedicated fans!

Marco.

[dufferdan]

I find this discussion fascinating, and really appreciate the input of Frank, as a professional recording engineer with decades of experience in actually producing the forms of music that we as consumers purchase.

Two comments/observations. On was the post where the concept of science was discredited because research changes over time and may change conclusions. Without the discipline of scientific questioning and continuous testing of theories, progress would eventually stall. In all areas of scientific endeavour. You can't throw out science just because conclusions evolve. Conclusions evolve because new information comes to light which changes or forces the theory being examined to be altered. Then it is tested again.

Related to this is the concept of human perception bias. In the case of choosing musicians for orchestras, it was for decades, the opinion of many conductors and orchestra leaders that only men could produce good sound. When these biases were tested and blind auditions were conducted, the chances of women being chosen went up dramatically. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml

In a very recent Stereophile edition, the editorial writer set up a "test" of audio cables. The writer couldn't believe that the other members of the audience didn't automatically perceive the higher priced cables as being better. http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-or-sound . The comments were arrogant and frankly very disrespectful of the opinions of others in the room. The only way one could make an accurate judgement of whether on cable is better than the other was to subject the entire process to a double blind test. One, the observers would have to be able to identify the two different cables over repeated trials to a level that was statistically significant. Then secondly, rate the cables, again blind, for whatever sonic qualities they perceived. Anything else is purely subjective opinion, and nothing else. On such a basis, everyone's opinion is equally valid.

Frank makes the point that scientifically, digital is more accurate than analogue sources, and he quantifies in relative terms the levels of accuracy of each playback source. His explanations match with others that I have read and also conversations I have had with other recording engineers and audiologists.

What I would like to see is those who put themselves out as "experts" on the matter and subject themselves to double blind testing of their ability to make accurate judgements of source material: player, digital, analogue, etc. it would also probably make sense to have ones hearing tested for accuracy. What are the actual frequencies you can and cannot hear. There is a cool little app called Dogwhistle where you can specify a frequency and play it. Get a good set of in ear monitors and have someone else select frequencies and see at what levels you can actually hear. My kids go batty if I play a 16 kHz tone through the iPhone speaker. I can barely hear it, if at all. Know your limits. Then you will better know what is your own perception, and what is fact.

Frank makes the point that one is welcome to prefer analogue, and its inherent imperfection. But that is personal bias, not science based opinion.

And if one is going to throw science out because conclusions change with new information, then one might as well go back to the Stone Age, give back your automobiles and temperature controlled living environments. And if you get sick, forget the medical universe, just go about your business and there is nothing we know today that can help you.

[webby]

I was also trying to be humorous. Did I fail?

Well, you've amused me.