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

Yup. It's hard to believe that some people can't hear differences.

And I don't really buy that you have to pass x% of double blind listening tests to establish that there is a difference. I wouldn't trust my ability to consistently listen to music and say "that's CDP A" or "that's CDP B". Even if I fail such a test, that doesn't mean there are not audible differences. And to me the differences are more perceptible over long-term listening.

 

Well audible differences means just that: they are audible. Hearing the differences when you can see the CDP is no different from the ability to hear the same difference; when not seeing the CDP.

 

My question is, how come so many think it´s possible generally.

 

Yes, but I just mean over long term listening you listen to a system, and listen to it, and listen to it. Day in and day out. You get used to how it sounds. Then bang! There is a change. It sticks out that something is different.

Flipping back and forth between two components every few seconds - it is much more difficult to pick out a change. You don't listen this way normally; you have to almost try to ascribe certain sounds to component A and certain sounds to component B, then you listen too intently to hear if you can pick up those cues. Because someone cannot be correct a statistically significant percentage of the time should hardly come as a surprise and is really proof of nothing.

 

Do You mean there is a change in sound without changing any component, a cheap solution.

Look, I can of course choose a couple of CDPs that will definitely sound different. But that isn´t the question; it is if CDPs have their own signature sound, menaing we will be able to tell which is which. As I see it is not possible.

 

Same receiver, same cables, same speakers, same CD, does a $50 CDP sound better or same then a $500 CDP?

 

No, I mean they always sound different. It's just if you do a test that flips from one to the next for a short passage of music, I don't think it proves anything if a listener can't reliably identify which player is playing.

If someone listens to recordings in full, over two or three days, and then puts a different player into the system, I think the effect on music playback is easier to see. It's even easier over a longer period.

Signature sound is different. A player can be pretty neutral and transparent and therefore one might say it doesn't have a signature sound. But even that might be it's signature sound.

Having a signature sound does not necessarily mean you can tell which is which. That will depend on various factors. If two players that sound similar are compared it may not be easy to tell them apart, no matter how a listening test is conducted. But if they have different signatures, listening to one for an extended period and then substituting the second player should let a listener determine if they prefer what player A does vs what player B does, or vice versa.

 

Bummer that the test thread is gone. Would have enjoyed discussing specifics among those who participated.

 

But that is not what You wrote previously, You said the sound will suddenly be different.
The rest is something made up. If they sound audibly different, that is what they will do.

 

No, I'm saying you listen to CD player A for a month or two. You get used to the sound. Then you put in CD player B. That's what I mean by the sound will suddenly be different. It's because you've changed your system from something that you had grown used to over a prolonged period and many hours. If you are swapping from A to B by flipping a switch every few seconds, it will not be as noticeable.

As for your last line, I disagree that if something is audibly different you will be able to pinpoint that 100% of the time. Humans aren't perfect and there are many variables. It's pretty much proven I think that human auditory memory is quite poor. This is why longer periods are needed to really reinforce in the mind how a system sounds.

 

[QUOTE="Dream On, post: 21266775, member: 28828"]No, I'm saying you listen to CD player A for a month or two. You get used to the sound. Then you put in CD player B. That's what I mean by the sound will suddenly be different. It's because you've changed your system from something that you had grown used to over a prolonged period and many hours. If you are swapping from A to B by flipping a switch every few seconds, it will not be as noticeable.

As for your last line, I disagree that if something is audibly different you will be able to pinpoint that 100% of the time. Humans aren't perfect and there are many variables. It's pretty much proven I think that human auditory memory is quite poor. This is why longer periods are needed to really reinforce in the mind how a system sounds.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree it´s not a bad way. But as any other listening tests also this will have some problems. But on the other hand we can only do so much.

 

Yes RME is used in classical recordings. And guess what, these recordings are internationally rated as top of the crop..
The recordings are done with older, less perfect AD (RME UFX). The ADI-2 Pro is even better.

If you dont believe, you just try the following:
Do an DA and then AD with ADI-2 Pro.
Then compare the original CD-file with the recorded in an ABX.
You will be surprised by the result.
I did this with an RME UFX (2000$, 12xAD,12xDA), all others stereo only: CD player mpman ($40.-), a DAC Lampizator seven ($10'000), Audionote ($5000).
Result is: Loop on RME could nobody differentiate from original.
All others: People could not tell reliably the difference

I included even an mp3 (VBR256) for test .

Testers have been all of the german forum "aktives hören"

In my opinion, CD-players, DAC are better than spekaers and headphones, thus not the liniting factor.

Anyway, CD is disaperaring, OPPO is going out of business regarding CD, DVD, Blueray players now (keep on going for mobiles).

Peter