POLL: Do You Think That Different CD Players Have Their Own Sonic Signature?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by audiomixer, Apr 28, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SKATTERBRANE

    SKATTERBRANE Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    Even if the digital section MIGHT sound the same, the analog section does not.
     
    audiomixer and klockwerk like this.
  2. DiabloG

    DiabloG City Pop, Rock, and anything 80s til I die

    Location:
    United States
    I've got an early 90's Onkyo that sounds very thin and bright, while all of my other players have a much warmer presentation. So I would say yes.
     
    audiomixer and TarnishedEars like this.
  3. Archimago

    Archimago Forum Resident

    The analog section BTW will be tested in the blind test since it is the analogue output that is captured from these very different devices.
     
    Robert C and missan like this.
  4. TerpStation

    TerpStation "Music's not for everyone."

    Location:
    Maryland
    Several years ago i went from an inexpensive sonyES to an oppo bdp 95. The difference as dramatic. The oppo light years ahead in terms of sound in all areas.
     
    audiomixer likes this.
  5. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    The quality of the AD conversion with the RME ADI-2 is also being tested. And I'd say that is the more important and influential factor in the entire test. Every DAC being recorded is getting the flavor of that ADI-2 converter. And the sonic flavor of that ADI-2 converter is obvious and overwhelming.

    I downloaded and listened to the test samples. Every sample for the different DACs all sound like they have been recorded with microphones at the back of a hall. Everything sounds distant with a fake spatial sound added in to give a fake impression of added depth. To me all of the recordings of the four DACs all sound awful. That sound is either the ADI-2 converter or something done in the processing of the files or setup of the recording process.

    I own some of the recordings used in the test. I listen to those tracks on my own setup played directly to my DAC and they sound normal to me. Then I listened to the same tracks recorded with the ADI-2 and they sound like a distant back of the hall sound mess. Many of the things I listen for in a DAC were all washed away and masked and turned to mush by the horrible AD conversion. To me this test is more about the sound of the ADI-2 converter and much less about the sound of the DACs being recorded. The sound of the ADI-2 or post processing just overwhelms any differences I could hope to hear in the DACs.
     
    Tullman likes this.
  6. Archimago

    Archimago Forum Resident

    Hmmm... Let's agree to disagree... The amplitude levels are quite different with the ADC so playback between the original and sample tracks cannot be compared directly without good matching. Plus there could be differences for DACs given that it's 24/96.

    The question is whether there are clear differences between very disparate playback devices. You'll see what I mean when I reveal the identities of the devices. Surely a studio-level ADC used in production of actual albums at hi-res can capture differences between 16/44 playback if differences were "obvious"!

    A friendly reminder - blind testing ends at the end of the month. For those who want to participate, let's get it done soon :).
     
    Robert C likes this.
  7. Tullman

    Tullman Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston MA
    This whole blind test is flawed and completely irrelevant to the original question.
     
    F1nut, TarnishedEars and klockwerk like this.
  8. Nick Brook

    Nick Brook Forum Resident

    Location:
    Yorkshire, UK.
    Over the last 8 months whilst searching for a cd player , at my local hifi shop we listened to different makes of cd player on the same amp/speaker set up , repeatedly . I'm in no doubt at all that different cd players do engage me to different degrees.
     
  9. vwestlife

    vwestlife Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    From Stereo Review, January 1997:

    [​IMG]
     
  10. teag

    teag Forum Resident

    Location:
    Colorado
    I have always noticed that they absolutely sound different. And a recent event proved it once again.

    My McIntosh MVP 871 is having some problems reading discs at certain times. It reads and plays great if I play the disc straight through. If I start skipping around the discs too much, it sometimes has trouble reading the disc. So I hooked up my Linn Genki and my Marantz DV 7600 to see how they would operate on my main system. Both of these units read discs with no problem. But they ALL sounded different. Remember, all 3 of these players were connected to my main system at the same time so I was able to run an ABC test on the same CDs. Here are the results:

    1. Marantz - way inferior sound, both with CDs and SACDs. I always thought this player sounded good until this test. It didn't even come close; less information, not as rich sounding, etc.

    2. Linn Genki - I bought this in 1999 and had it serviced by Linn once, in 2008. Its been part of my bedroom system for the last 10 years. This player sounded fantastic compared to the Marantz. Rich, full sound. Really engaging. I could live with this player forever and be happy. Does not play SACD but I have the McIntosh to do that when I want to.

    3. Mcintosh MVP871 - also sounded fantastic, as it should for the price. Close to the Linn as far as being engaging, but the Linn is a bit more musical/richer. I could live with this sound forever also.

    All 3 sounded different being run through the same system, same room, where I could do an ABC test within a minute of each other using the same CDs at the same volume. No question at all.
     
  11. Archimago

    Archimago Forum Resident

    Interesting! Will see if the results match...
     
  12. Archimago

    Archimago Forum Resident

    Nonsense IMO. So do you have evidence to qualify this belief/guess/hunch around the performance of the ADI-2 ADC? Or are you telling me this based only on your "faith" that this is the truth?

    Reminder folks. Last few days.
     
  13. Tullman

    Tullman Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston MA
    The original post was for cd players not some DAC you have lying around the house. Besides, when I listen on my end I'm listening on my DAC from a download via the internet.
     
    TarnishedEars and audiomixer like this.
  14. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    We understand the connection between CD players and DACs, right? I hate to be so pedantic, but ?
     
  15. Tullman

    Tullman Senior Member

    Location:
    Boston MA
    I understand the difference between a cd player and a transport connected to a DAC. I've had both.
     
    audiomixer likes this.
  16. TarnishedEars

    TarnishedEars Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Seattle area
    Typical stereo review: Every piece of electronics that they ever reviewed sounded identical to those guys. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019
    audiomixer and jusbe like this.
  17. petertakov

    petertakov Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Could you, please, elaborate a bit on what do you mean by "rich", "full" and especially - "musical" sound? Thank you.
     
  18. Archimago

    Archimago Forum Resident

    Robert C likes this.
  19. avanti1960

    avanti1960 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago metro, USA
    is yours?
     
  20. Robert C

    Robert C Forum Resident

    Location:
    London, UK
  21. F1nut

    F1nut Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Mars Hotel
    Yes, very odd since the original question asked was whether different CD players have their own sonic signature.
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  22. avanti1960

    avanti1960 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago metro, USA
    1) Marantz SA8005 retail $1300
    2) Pro-Ject CD Box retail $320

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    SandAndGlass and George P like this.
  23. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    The main problem I have with this experiment is that I don't consider the RME ADI-2 to be a neutral AD converter, or a neutral DAC. Maintaining neutrality is more than maintaining a flat frequency response. Neutrality must also maintain the same spatial qualities and same imaging. And that is where the REM ADI-2 fails. It doesn't maintain the same spatial qualities. The AD converter causes everything to sound further away than it should be. Everything is more set-back in the soundstage than it should be. Everything sounds like it is farther away from the microphones than it should be. If everything sounds farther away then there can be no near. A neutral AD converter must preserve the same sense of near in a recording if that recording has near sounds. The ADI-2 fails at that.

    I don't know how the ADI-2 gets used in professional studio work. Maybe they use in special situations where they want to have some extra space and depth around a lead vocal. Record the lead vocal with the ADI-2 to get a little extra space before it gets crushed down to a DR6 for a modern recording. I hope the ADI-2 doesn't get used for classical music recordings. It would ruin the imaging and proper spatial cues for an acoustic classical music recording.

    A big part of what I listen for when listening to different DACs is the style of imaging they do. How well they do near sounds and far sounds. On headphones I'm after a "you are there" style of sound where my ears get put where the microphones are. When sounds are close to the microphone I want to hear that closeness. When sounds are farther away I want to hear how far away they are. A very important part of achieving a "you are there" style of sound is the ability to present the sense of close. If the sense of close sounds is not presented correctly then the sense of "there" is gone and the "you are there" sound does not happen. So I'm very critical of this aspect.

    The Satriani "Crowd Chant" sample in your test makes it absolutely clear that the ADI-2 cannot record close. The "Crowd Chant" on my headphone gear should be right in my face. Instead it sounded like I was at the back of the auditorium. It was the weirdest and most wrong playback of "Crowd Chant" I have ever heard.

    Since the ADI-2 cannot do the near sounds the entire test became useless for me to even attempt. I'm not going to be able to hear the differences in the DACs that I want to be able to hear to differentiate them.
     
  24. petertakov

    petertakov Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    @Archimago Hi, I have just seen that you have revealed the players used for your blind test. I thought the whole point of the test was to prove whether or not they sound different. "Best" and "worst" is something completely different and highly subjective. I really don't see how this test proves it's point if they were all indeed different players? I would hope that there is at least a couple of identical test files from the same player to test whether these will be perceived as different by the participants or identified as the same.
     
  25. Archimago

    Archimago Forum Resident

    Hi Peter.

    Yes, we can say that "good" and "bad" are subjective. But once you put the objective performance into the mix, there is such a thing as "high fidelity" and "accuracy".

    As you can see, I revealed the objective performance last week and this week put it together with the listener preferences.

    BLIND TEST Results Part 3: "Do digital audio players sound different playing 16/44.1 music?" - Listener Results.

    There were some interesting findings I think... And good reason not to be afraid of blind tests :).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine