Dollars, Diminishing returns & Digital playback

I think one can find high end players that still sound good compared to budget players but I think I could also find many high end players from the 90s that would not sound great. That's still consistent with my earlier statements by the way.

The cheaper Sony SACD players don't always do a great job on red book (although the 999 is very good) but they can sound very good on Super Audio. The SCD-1 and SCD777 and XA9000ES all sound great on Red Book and SACD is amazing-close to your finer turntables IMHO.

 

Right now I'm listening to my vintage (1987) Sony CDP-C5F changer at work, spinning Copland-Appalchian Spring through a 1976 Kenwood KR-7600 receiver and vintage Large Advents.
It sounds great to my ears and that old player reads any CD-R I throw at it. Heck my 5 year old Toshiba SD-5109 DVD/CD player won't read CD-r's but a 17 year old Sony player does, go figure.
Anyway, I really enjoy listening to music through this relatively old gear and don't notice a downside to seeking out vintage CD Players to see if they meet your taste.
I'm sure jitter is more prevalent in these older players but remember what all the measurement dudes say about tubes and vinyl.

 

Nasty. Go see the ear doc.

Jitter is one metric that does correlate with sound. It does make a difference. We've done A/B tests...

 

I don't, but I could guess. Who's committing that atrocity against nature?

 

First off, I should note that I made a mod to my Sony DVP-NS775V. The power cord was replaced by an a/c interconnect I made about eight years ago consisting of a hospital plug, 12 guage continuous-cast silver-clad copper crystal Van den Hul wire and a Bybee filter. So, right off the bat the player is no longer a stock unit. My experience is that Bybee filters make a big difference with digital gear, cleaning up the sound, reducing graininess and improving pitch. I've heard that some cheap Sony players sound better than others. In any case, I wouldn't throw out a piece of Krell gear, I know how good their stuff can sound. It's just that as of 2005 you can get SACDs that will beat the tar out of Redbook playback. Of course, it all depends on what sort of music you listen to. Any music that spends a lot of time being played softly (pp, ppp) does not reproduce properly with Redbook, or at least not as well as it can with good analog gear or good SACD gear. I haven't heard any DVD-A gear yet, so I have to reserve judgment on that format.

I hope I'm not being nasty, but I'm quite familiar with the sound of Large Advents (I've used them for many years and can no longer stand them) and I've heard more than my fair share of Kenwood/Pioneer/Sansusi...etc... gear from the seventies. As far as I'm concerned, that sort of gear no longer can cut it. I spent over ten years recording acoustic music, mostly classical and mostly live, so that sound is something I know. There is a sense of continuity in live, acoustic music that Lps can convey and SACD is up to that I have yet to hear from any redbook playback.

 

I'm curious. Have you done jitter tests comparing the same piece of gear with and without Bybee filters?

 

Robin,

No tests of Bybee filters. I've heard mixed things but some I respect swear by them.

You do a jitter test by recording with and without a Master Clock input which owers the jitter. It's quite surprising how minute amounts of time distortion can muck up the sound. God gave us a miraculous device in our ears.

 

That Optimus 3400 set-up I used to have. You would not believe the mad scientist nature of the power supply. 5 10-amp hour 6 volt gel cells, an amazing load of capacitors and high end wire, all to feed this tiny, cheap portable player. I was getting more and better bass, better definition, quieter backgrounds. The more I increased the size of this heap, the better the sonic results even though it was working solely in the digital domain. I suspect having an ultra stable DC power source would work wonders at reducing jitter. John Curl heard the set-up, was impressed and introduced me to Bybee filters and Jack Bybee. It seems to me that Bybee filters do what I was after with that huge heap of batteries in a more elegant and economical fashion.

 

That would be acceptable. What is not acceptable is to make a post here with unwarranted criticism of another member's hi-fi equipment.

As I said, I was keen to listen to these famous speakers - and this implies that I did not have much previous experience doing that. Gee, I don't like your tone in this post mate. The Tannoys were being shown by Audio Unlimited of Denver in room 1811 at the Alexis Park. The turntable was a really excellent JR Transroter with a SME 302 arm and the amplifiers were Air Tights. I can't recall the cartridge. Follow the link below (I can't directly link the image) and search for Tannoy. The picture is from the Rocky Mountains show, and not from CES, but they had the same gear at both shows. As you can see, the speakers are the Tannoy Westminsters. I listened to two jazz records.

http://www.audiofederation.com/catalog/show-reports/RMAF-October-2004/index2.htm

My opinion was that this system was let down slightly by the speakers. They did not completely reveal microdynamics and supressed venue information. The music was really enjoyable, and I found myself sucked into the performance, but there was something unsatisfying. Perhaps "mushy" is not quite the right word - somewhat lacking in specificity.

Why are you laughing at me? My impressions of these speakers under show conditions were that they did not fully express the venue information on the recording.

Whatever. We follow different roads in life, but there is no need for this sort of put down. Try to be more friendly.

I assume the last phrase is aimed at the Coincidents. The new extender feet completely stabilise the speakers, which are top heavy as you say. "bunk boxes" is totally uncalled for.

I have a lot of time for Kara Chaffee's work, having heard a number of her designs at CES, THE Show and Stereophile's HE show. Her recent outings with Joe Rosen's cables, Sony 777ES as a transport with a separate DAC, her fabulous Ampex tape recorder and Alon (Nola) speakers have been excellent - one of the best sounds at the show.

Obviously a poor setup. Don't blame the speakers for doing what the rest of the system is telling them to do. The Super Eclipse do have a weakness, but you haven't found it.

If you are meaning to criticise the Super Eclipses in this sentence (and what else can I imagine you are trying to say), then you should get your facts right.

Again, don't blame the speakers.

What you should do is come back and apologise for being so rude to me.

 

Excuse me? Go see the ear doc. doesn't sound too snobby, does it?

I doubt you've heard my old Kenwood, Sony, and Large Advent combo so you are basing your opinion on jitter tests no doubt through highly resolving systems which this old system is not. It is pure musical enjoyment to me. Am I allowed to say that without you playing doctor?

 

Whatever works for you is what really matters. I've just never had any good luck with Advent speakers or Kenwood receivers. Maybe there is something magical about your combination.

 

I don't have enough experience to be a credible reviewer for one thing and apparently BNC to RCA coaxial cables are uncommon, as calls to five high-end stores found none. But the owner of Applause Audio (good stuff in there btw) is going to assemble a DH Lab for me once he picks up a BNC connector today. So I'll reserve judgement on the DAC1 as I'm now using a 4 year old no-name plastic toslink and I don't think I'm getting the full measure now. The manual even says a toslink is limited to 96kz while the coaxial will go 192kz, how ever audile those differences are.

But even with a crap cable the DAC1 seems to be the epitome of transparency and neutrality. Benchmark seems an appropriate enough name. Not that it is the most musical, unbeatable component at any price but that it does make a big statement regarding price and performance. I'll wait until I get the proper cable hooked up.

Very interesting was the person I purchased it from, listed as a dealer through the Benchmark web site, Cory Ferguson of ferguson Audio Engineering. A tremendously nice man with no real knowledge of the consumer audio world and who said a few times "I just can't believe you're here for that". Into broadcast audio engineering the surroundings were full of measuring equipment and binders marked 'NBC'/'CBS'/'CBC'/City-TV', etc. We chatted for nearly an hour about the two different worlds. He related how blown away he was during a Paul Anka broadcast recording (this year?) and couldn't imagine a home rig even approaching that reality. This was not conveyed in a demeaning way at all, just pure straight talk. Saying he's known the Benchmark owner for 20 years, he showed me a Benchmark microphone preamplifier which he said was the quietest and hasn't changed in those 20 years, and that he had installed many in a Bell laboratory in Ottawa.
I saw a reel to reel and commented on it to which he replied it was a 1968 Crown, "one of the first".

A fantastic guy!

 

Please stop the personal attacks in this thread and keep it on topic.

Sean

 

It almost keeps pace with the 20K Weiss studio DACs based on my listening. It's a terrific device.

 

Say it again!
I did get a Stereovox HDXV coaxial which has about 100 hours on it now and I'm just thrilled with the Benchmark DAC1. I haven't heard the big multi-K digital players and maybe another listener will deny there's too much difference between my Arcam CD73 and the DAC1 but I'll bet the difference between them is much greater than that between the DAC1 and the big multi-K players. The Arcam sounds distant, veiled and a little gray in comparison.

My girlfriend admited to hearing the obviously dramatic improvement and at the same time confessed to saying she said she heard differences between some of my cable comparisons in the past when in fact she couldn't hear any difference at all (trying to make me feel better ).

A revealing device indeed!

 

I was warned by the Stereovox dealer in France that the HDXV cable takes 200 hrs to burn in. I got it together with a Musical Fidelity Tri Vista 21 DAC and this combo sounded like crap after 150 hrs. I left everything on repeat for over a week before any serious listening.

Goran

 

Really! That's good to know. The whole burn in thing has always been a bit of a question mark for me though...kind of difficult to do a quick A-B with only one item. I keep thinking I am the one burning in/adjusting over the many hours!

I'll keep counting and comparing as best I can.
Thanks Goran

BTW Goran did you find the 200 hour estimate to be factual?

 

The fact is that I received both things (DAC and the Stereovox cable) roughly at the same time and burnt them in together. Therefore, I cannot claim anything for a single component. What I do know is that it took 300 hours until i liked the sound. But that's probably due to the DAC rather than the cable. I'll quote the French dealer for Stereovox:
"Enjoy your new cable, but be aware 200hours burn in required before full potential
Initially, the HDXV sounds a little flat."

Goran

 

Personally, for the money (about 550-600) you cant beat the Parasound CDP-2000 Ultra...rugged construction, dual power supplies, top loader belt drived,,,its as joy to listen to...

yesterday I hooked up my new tannoys and listened to the XRCD of Reiner's Pix at an Exhib,,and i was further amazed....