Dollars, Diminishing returns & Digital playback

As I'm about to do some in-store listening to CD players over the next few weeks, I've aquainted myself with numerous reviews and it does seem like a strange digital landscape.
$2000 Moon Equinox CDPs aren't too much different from $50 Toshiba DVD players to "undiscerning ears", $1000 Benchmark DACs are within spitting distance of $16,000 Mark Levinsons, and yet subtleties such as PRaT have Naim fans dismiss pricey Arcams or Shigaraki DAC lovers prefer unfiltered digital playback for its "timing" over the "blurry" upsampling of equivalently priced DACs.

There are certainly a wealth of models to choose from in my price range 1K-2K.
I'm not asking for any specific advice really but general comments are of course welcome on the diminishing returns within digital playback observation.
My wallet hopes my ears are moderately "undiscerning".

 

Wait until you hear a vintage cd player from a thrift store that blows away a $2000 modern audiophile deck.

 

Agree. I have a very old cheapo ADC (BSR made) CD player that STILL works and sounds better than most higher end units. Only problem with it is track access is slow. If you can get past that, it's a tank that sounds great.

 

Are you going to name names?

 

If there's an area of music reproduction that gets unduly overlooked, it is digital source playback.

I've used everything from a $99 DVD player, $199 SACD player all the way up the line to my modified Sony SCD-1. I have yet to hear anything that sounds like something far cheaper (or far more expensive). I was most dissapointed with an entry level Sony deck, the DVPN-C650V. It sounded dull, lifeless, muddy, and terribly smeared. It would turn me off of CDs/SACDs instantly if I was used to decent LP playback.

Now, I have made comments before about how much I enjoy the Denon DVD-3910, and I still do. Does it sound like a Sony counterpart that is 2X-4X the price? No.

Possibly the "sweet spot" for digital playback is in the $1000-2000 range. This would hold true with my experiences of the above mentioned Denon, as well as the Sony XA777ES/9000ES models. I still thing there's room for improvement beyond these, specifically in the midrange. Players in the $4K+ category often get a midrange smoothness, and fullness that is lacking in other players. Since this is were the majority of musically information is, I think it's important to pursue players that can make vocals sound as real as possible.

 

...most of the early compact disc players don't handle CDR's very well. I came across the first Sony Compact Disc Player at a thrift shop...it weighed a ton!

 

I have no use for a CD player that won't take CD-Rs. That's most of my listening anymore. Right now, in my changer, that's all there is. That's mostly all there has been for years. I have a Technics CD player gathering dust because it won't play CD-Rs.

 

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. Every early cd player I've ever played around with has tracked cdrs. I'm not saying they all do because I'm sure there are exceptions, but I would venture to say that most of the ones that don't are simply shot. In other words, they're going to have problems across the board with certain cds.

 

No loss - it was probably a dog.

 

Hi,

I would be anything but satisified w/ a vintage thrift shop cd player. A well-modded modern cdp will leave 'em in the dust.

Take care,
Jeffrey

 

Just my opinion but....

About 6 months ago I was in a similar position (well it was $1200, not $2000). I listened to many players and on a higher end system there were noticeable differences. My wife actually suggested we get the expensive one because it sounded better (that was the first time that ever happened). There definitely are diminishing returns but there are some significant differences on the proper systems. For what it's worth I got the Arcam

 

Just curious what the criteria are you use to judge the "blow away" factor, and an example or two.

I'm not being smart here; I'll use a specific example: I still have my Rotel 855 CD player that I bought back in 1990 when it was considered a budget, giant killer player. Compared to what I consider very good digital playback (my modified Philips 963SA) the Rotel does sound nice, but nowhere near in the same league. To be more specific, its "sins" are those of omission in that it doesn't have the detail resolution, the transparency, frequency extension, harmonic richness, or even the PRAT factor that the more recent player does. The Rotel could still be called "musical" in that it portrays the sound with decent timing and integration, without digital harshnessbut what it "omits" tends to soften the presentation and, frankly, gloss over the sins of much of digital production of its day (well, and today too, I guess). I think you could make the argument that the reason some vintage players sound great is what they omit, not what they're giving you. To me that's not a reason for buying a "vintage" (is 1985 really vintage?) player.

John K.

 

Well, this thread has inspired me to drag my 1985 Sony CDP-30 out of the closest for a little work out. I don't think it had been plugged in for well over 5 years, and amazingly (well, maybe not THAT amazing) it still works.

Now I need to scrounge up two copies of some of my discs and so a little comparison against the 4 other players in the rack (nothing high-end...a Pio 45a, Denon 1600, Sony 650D, Pio 509 CD-R deck).

Not expecting miracles, but it seems like this will be fun to do, just for yucks, so long as I can get the levels matched.

BGL

 

I'm interested in the sound of the music, not the gear. Therefore I speak in terms of raw musicality. If one player sounds natural, accurate, and doesn't fatigue...it blows away another player that does the opposite. There's no magic formula or difficult process....I just use my ears.

 

...they were the worst offenders with CDR's...they suck! I had a few I threw out the window, no joke.

 

Grant: how old was that Technics player you had? My own Technics player (a 2002 model, the single-disc SL-PG4) and my roommate's SL-PD667 changer (a 1995 model) both successfully play CD-Rs from Maxell, Imation, Memorex and TDK. One reason I've always liked Technics players, besides their longevity, is their ability to read dirty or scratched discs that most other players cannot play.

 

I hate to be critical, but this is not a very good answer. thegage gave very specific observations, and you have not. "raw musicality" - what that means eludes me. "Natural" - on rock music would be a stretch; "accurate" - we have no idea. "doesn't fatigue" - sure, I can relate to that one.

 

Not sure what kind of answer you're looking for, mate....but I probably don't have it in me. Observations of what? Are we discussing a certain model of player here or did I miss something? I thought I stated what I meant fairly clearly. Lets recap:

A) I don't like to listen to gear. I like to listen to music. If I feel that I'm listening to a 'house sound' or the gimmicky flavor of most high end cd players, I'm not interested.

B) Raw musicality- I don't know how to explain this. Is the player musical? Do I feel like I'm listening to real music? Does it sound like a live band in my living room? Am I able to let go and absorb myself in the emotion of the sonic event or is it a clinical and icy presentation?

C) Natural- on rock music...a "stretch"??? Please don't take this personally, but yes....on a pair of Coincident Super Eclipse, it certainly is a stretch.

D) Accurate- I'm sorry that you have no idea, but I do. I know what a snare drum sounds like close miked with a 57 or at a distance w/a U87 overhead. I know what a Rickenbacker 330 sounds like cranked through a Vox AC-30. I know what a Les Paul sounds like through a vintage Marshall amp. I know what a '60s p-bass sounds like through a Dual Showman and I know what a hi-hat sounds like, etc, etc, etc. Does the cd player sound like the real thing or not? Is there a clear picture of space between the various components of the music? Is the information rendered properly or is it pinched, colored, tilted, or smeared? It's not rocket science. If you want to calibrate your ears, I'd be happy to take you to my next studio gig in the south bay area so you can see for yourself.

 

Hi,

I disagree w/ the opinion that a vintage thrift shop cdp is more accurate than a well-modded modern unit. IMO, the resolution on my APL SACD 1000 is many levels above ANY vintage thrift shop cdp i've ever heard. I do not consider a cdp w/ significant resolution limitations to be highly accurate and/or natural. I also question the extended frequencies of vintage thrift shop cdp's.

Take care,
Jeffrey

 

I think I understand what you're getting at, and in fact this is more like the way I listen. I rarely sit down to listen to the differences in gear. I usually put it in the system, play something, and then go about my usual business. My first impression is drawn from how I react to a piece of gear just in terms of how well it lets me enjoy the music I'm listenting to, without trying to be critical about such things as detail, transparency, soundstage, etc. If it passes this first test--and many pieces of gear don't--then I might sit down and do a more critical evaluation of just what it is I like about the gear.

In terms of the comparison of the Rotel to the 963, putting the Rotel in the system does let me enjoy the music, and does it respectably, but it does not give me the level of enjoyment that the 963 does. And when I sat down to analyze why, I came up with the reasons given above.

John K.

 

Vinatge CD players have high levels of jitter and compare poorly to players from around 1995 to present.

 

What reb said.

Doppelganger, great thread. May I offer some observations?

1. The Benchmark Dac paired with a low jitter transport (i use a Sony SCD-777ES) to my ears sounds better than most Mark Levinson gear and I am a huge ML fan, got one in my Lexus.

2. In terms of SACD, you do often get what you pay for. The new Sony 9000ES is terrific, but the $10,000 Ed Meitner Labs is bettet still. Do you get 100% improvement? no but maybe 30% but thats a lot of moolah for even this jaded audiophile.

3. There are many good redbook CD players. I like the Rega planet, some of the Musical Fidelity gear, SimAudio, Arcam, Meridian, etc. to name a few.

4. Overall though I find the Benchmark DAC to be an incredible value-if you have a decent, low jitter transport then I urge you to listen to the Benchmark.

 

Two more things, based on my studio experience...

5. Jitter makes a big difference. Make sure the number is low.

6. Polarity makes a big difference. Give bonus points to players that offer an invert polarity switch.

I have to politely disagree with Prix. In my experience, there are no good sounding vintage players as the jitter is often astronomical (above nanosecond range). Implementation has improved remarkably since the late 80s and early 90s. DAC design has also improved tremendously since 1997.

 

Thanks, I tried to frame my situation in a way that it could be interesting for others to participate in, in a thread. Rather than have it just about me, me, me.

But I'm a wee bit giddy....OK quite giddy at the moment (1:10pm est) because around 3:00 pm I am picking up a Benchmark DAC1. I simply have to try it given the amount of superlatives about it. It seems like a great reference point.

And it'll be fun dragging out my 10 year old Sony CDP to try, as well as my bottom of the line Panasonic DVD player and see how they compare to my Arcam with and without the Benchmark in the loop.

 

Hi Mike,

Congrats.... sounds like you have found a great solution w/ the Benchmark. I look forward to hearing your review.

Enjoy the tunes,
Jeffrey