CD Player Damaging CDs?

[Bryn]

Some interesting reading for 203 owners here.....

https://www.russandrews.com/oppo-udp-203-eu-upgrade/

Very impressive under the lid, I must say....I take it the transport is genuinely proprietary?

Impressive but also beyond my budget. There are many other things I would rather spend £745 on.

[vinteuil]

Impressive but also beyond my budget. There are many other things I would rather spend £745 on.

... well exactly - for £745 you could probably get a metre or two of Russ Andrews's kimber cable!

https://www.russandrews.com/the-superkord500-sdii-uk-mains-w350-evo-rhodium/

.

[jayne lee wilson]

Impressive but also beyond my budget. There are many other things I would rather spend £745 on.

Absolutely...but offered as ever for "the sake of interest"......

Kimber Kable is excellent, BTW.... there are many far cheaper models than the top-of-range rhodium......

[gradus]

Absolutely...but offered as ever for "the sake of interest"......

Kimber Kable is excellent, BTW.... there are many far cheaper models than the top-of-range rhodium......

There have been many well-informed sceptical voices over the years re cables, has there ever been anything resembling a true double-blind test by impartial testers and listeners that returned confirmation of the claims made? Wasn't it Peter Walker who passed a signal through 30 (?) Quad amps before driving an ESL57 connected with lighting flex against a single Quad amp driving an ESL 57 and the listeners could not tell the difference - nothing audibly added or lost; that sort of thing is convincing.

[jayne lee wilson]

There have been many well-informed sceptical voices over the years re cables, has there ever been anything resembling a true double-blind test by impartial testers and listeners that returned confirmation of the claims made? Wasn't it Peter Walker who passed a signal through 30 (?) Quad amps before driving an ESL57 connected with lighting flex against a single Quad amp driving an ESL 57 and the listeners could not tell the difference - nothing audibly added or lost; that sort of thing is convincing.

Have you ever heard Kimber Kable in your own system, comparatively or in isolation? Surely you'd trust your own ears if you did.
I tried some models out, kept some (8TC Speaker Cable, Carbon interconnect, older gen Classic Powerkord, some of the latter since replaced with Nordost), returned some....
I never came across the experiment you mention. It sounds utterly bizarre (30 amps?!); about as far from actual listening as you could get. Like a game designed to confirm a prejudice.

All I ever do is listen (always in my own room & system; carefully, over time: listening to one set-up for a few days before switching over); never with rapid A/B or A/B/A comparisons, which just confuse the ear/brain and are very remote from the actual experience of listening. I keep what works for me, send back what doesn't...

As legendary producer Bob Ludwig said:
"You can't always hear what can be measured; you can't always measure what can be heard".....

The Human Eye is not a camera; the Human Ear is not a microphone.

Yes, measurements can be very useful, especially in the digital domain. But finally it comes back to the subjective: you hear it or you don't, you like it or you don't. You take time and care over listening and judging for yourself. Or you read about others' tests and say, "QED".

Listeners who cannot pick up those subtle hifi qualities that can be the difference between the very special and the merely very good, often seem unduly irritated when those who can appreciate such things go to some trouble to describe their experiences.

[mikealdren]

Peter Walker talked about amps being a "straight wire with gain" and tried to prove that his amps, single or multiple, didn't alter the sound.

We're getting off the subject but my view on cables is that I can hear the difference between 'bell wire' interconnects and good quality ones but for me, that's as far as it goes and I can only hear the difference on high quality equipment. Perhaps I'm too old now.

I also believed, like Peter Walker, that all good quality amps sound the same but I'm now certain that they don't and it's cost me a lot of money!

[Dave2002]

Some cables do sound better - at least interconnects. I'm much less sure about speaker cable. There's an awful lot of "hi-fi woo" trying to take your money.

Most buyers try to reduce cognitive dissonance by assuring themselves after they've bought something (expensive) that there was a difference, and it was "worth it".

[gradus]

Have you ever heard Kimber Kable in your own system, comparatively or in isolation? Surely you'd trust your own ears if you did.
I tried some models out, kept some (8TC Speaker Cable, Carbon interconnect, older gen Classic Powerkord, some of the latter since replaced with Nordost), returned some....
I never came across the experiment you mention. It sounds utterly bizarre (30 amps?!); about as far from actual listening as you could get. Like a game designed to confirm a prejudice.

All I ever do is listen (always in my own room & system; carefully, over time: listening to one set-up for a few days before switching over); never with rapid A/B or A/B/A comparisons, which just confuse the ear/brain and are very remote from the actual experience of listening. I keep what works for me, send back what doesn't...

As legendary producer Bob Ludwig said:
"You can't always hear what can be measured; you can't always measure what can be heard".....

The Human Eye is not a camera; the Human Ear is not a microphone.

Yes, measurements can be very useful, especially in the digital domain. But finally it comes back to the subjective: you hear it or you don't, you like it or you don't. You take time and care over listening and judging for yourself. Or you read about others' tests and say, "QED".

Listeners who cannot pick up those subtle hifi qualities that can be the difference between the very special and the merely very good, often seem unduly irritated when those who can appreciate such things go to some trouble to describe their experiences.

I'm not at all irritated, just interested at the complexity of practice that can underpin musical enjoyment.

[Cockney Sparrow]

There have been many well-informed sceptical voices over the years re cables, has there ever been anything resembling a true double-blind test by impartial testers and listeners that returned confirmation of the claims made? ............

The US Audio Engineering Society Journal (Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September) had the report of a double blind testing for Hi-Res (SACD etc) against CD replay. AES: “Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback”. At one time the AES report was hard to access. If anyone would like a copy, let me know.

They couldn’t establish the subjects found superiority. I haven’t kept up with any later tests run by such an organisation. However, when tests such as these are put forward, there are reasons put forward why the environment of the test aren’t satisfactory and shouldn’t determine one’s conclusion about Hi-Res. The test didn't involve cables, but then the same criticisms of a test would be made - so wasted effort. There needs to be care about comparing sources - when SACDs were launched, there were higher quality files involved in SACD, as against the issued CD - so comparison needs to be done from one source/original file.

There are plenty of enthusiasts for SACD. Maybe its just higher quality all round, I don't know. If you want to spend the time and the money on all this equipment, who am I to object? I’ll leave it there. (Also, I have multi function players which can play SACDs....DVDs, CDs).

[gradus]

The US Audio Engineering Society Journal (Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September) had the report of a double blind testing for Hi-Res (SACD etc) against CD replay. AES: “Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback”. At one time the AES report was hard to access. If anyone would like a copy, let me know.

They couldn’t establish the subjects found superiority. I haven’t kept up with any later tests run by such an organisation. However, when tests such as these are put forward, there are reasons put forward why the environment of the test aren’t satisfactory and shouldn’t determine one’s conclusion about Hi-Res. The test didn't involve cables, but then the same criticisms of a test would be made - so wasted effort. There needs to be care about comparing sources - when SACDs were launched, there were higher quality files involved in SACD, as against the issued CD - so comparison needs to be done from one source/original file.

There are plenty of enthusiasts for SACD. Maybe its just higher quality all round, I don't know. If you want to spend the time and the money on all this equipment, who am I to object? I’ll leave it there. (Also, I have multi function players which can play SACDs....DVDs, CDs).

Thanks for that, it does seem difficult to debunk or to verify subjective responses by tests so best perhaps as you say to leave it there. I still remember being bowled over by LowtherTP1s driven by a Lowther valve amp reproducing the then new Decca Gotterdamerung recording in the far from ideal surrounding of the Hotel Russel at one of the sixties audio shows and I wonder if I'd still respond that way now.

[Pianoman]

We've been here many times....
All I can honestly say is that level-matched and un-sighted, the differences in much equipment will magically disappear. In fact I took part in one such test many moons ago and ultimately a modest priced system sounded more 'right' (ie. cohesive, better sound stage, all that blather...) than a c.£60,000 Naim/ B&W system...go figure.
And as for those who cannot pick up on these subtle differences and decry those who can - I find just the opposite; those 'golden-eared audiophiles' who have box-swapped their way to an expensive system have to tell you all the differences/ improvements they heard. No proof of course (there never can be) but their dealers are sure happy.

[mikealdren]

We've been here many times....
All I can honestly say is that level-matched and un-sighted, the differences in much equipment will magically disappear. In fact I took part in one such test many moons ago and ultimately a modest priced system sounded more 'right' (ie. cohesive, better sound stage, all that blather...) than a c.£60,000 Naim/ B&W system...go figure.
And as for those who cannot pick up on these subtle differences and decry those who can - I find just the opposite; those 'golden-eared audiophiles' who have box-swapped their way to an expensive system have to tell you all the differences/ improvements they heard. No proof of course (there never can be) but their dealers are sure happy.

I certainly agree. However this doesn't mean there are no differences and there are certainly differences between equipment so some of it becomes a question of preferences. As a 'classical' music lover, I do have an absolute sound in my head of different instruments and voices and I have preferences, lovers of 'popular' music are stuck with 'solid bass' and 'fast treble'.

I went to a 'HiFi show' run by HiFi News at the Ascot racecourse hotel and I was horrified by the poor quality of many of the Demos which seemed to be on the basis that loud is good. I heard one natural sounding demo of a relatively old LP, played at reasonable levels, on decent equipment; it was one of the highlights of the day.

At the end of the day, as a pensioner, I take some persuading to spend money on equipment and ultimately my wife and I trust our ears.

[jayne lee wilson]

Recap of a a few personal reflections and principles....


1) Even some quite sophisticated systems aren’t as good as others at revealing significant differences clearly (leaving rooms and ears aside for now). This has often led to many listeners denying they exist, or denying their importance.
2) The notion that any audiophile justifies her expensive purchase by (self-) convincing that it sounds great is very old hat. With a few unavoidable exceptions, no serious audiophile I’ve met bought anything without a home trial.
I probably sent back more than I kept. And if I felt later that I’d made a mistake when I kept something, I couldn't avoid regretting it. So self-convincing never really applied. Heartache was the more likely result.

3) High-end can cost less than you think, if you stick to exdem or 2ndhand. My 22-year old Krell was pretty scuffy when I got it, but I replaced fascia and lid for a very modest cost. Drawer/Laser-serviced twice, still looks like new.
Most of my system is "pre-loved" (or perhaps sometimes "just got bored with" or pre-hated ), especially since most exdem/2ndhand dealers are very happy to offer home trial. I learnt a lot from such auditioning too.

4) Quick checks: the more obvious a given system/component is at revealing differences between recordings (about the hall, the individual sound of the performers and their position in the hall etc) the better it is, in the sense of being transparent to the signal passing through it.
Try lossless against 24/96, either stream or download. This won't invariably be the case (due to source/mastering variations)**, but If you can’t detect a difference, it is probably system, room or ears that is hiding it.

**One reason SACD quality is such a vexed question is precisely because so many discs are mastered from 24/96 (or lower) pcm. Either is certainly and often audibly a more highly resolved medium than CD, but again it depends on each recording and the component/system playing it.

I am very sceptical of blind testing because human perception tends to be sharper, the more information it has about what it is perceiving. If you watch the birds in the garden or hear them call, you’ll identify them faster, the more familiar you are with them.

[LHC]

Some of the Marantz 63/67 1990s series emit the most alarming banshee wail as the drawer opens and closes in winter. Not the best prelude for a Mozart String Quartet.
You have to apply lithium grease to the runners, but even then it needs repeat treatments, and warmer conditions for serene smoothness to return, as it takes the grease a while to soften and spread..

my first CD player was the Marantz CD-63 B. It was a lovely machine, and was built like a tank despite its diminutive size.



The controls were pretty rudimentary, although I suspect it might still perform pretty well against some of the cheaper players on the market now. I wish I still had it.

[gradus]

Recap of a a few personal reflections and principles....


1) Even some quite sophisticated systems aren’t as good as others at revealing significant differences clearly (leaving rooms and ears aside for now). This has often led to many listeners denying they exist, or denying their importance.
2) The notion that any audiophile justifies her expensive purchase by (self-) convincing that it sounds great is very old hat. With a few unavoidable exceptions, no serious audiophile I’ve met bought anything without a home trial.
I probably sent back more than I kept. And if I felt later that I’d made a mistake when I kept something, I couldn't avoid regretting it. So self-convincing never really applied. Heartache was the more likely result.

3) High-end can cost less than you think, if you stick to exdem or 2ndhand. My 22-year old Krell was pretty scuffy when I got it, but I replaced fascia and lid for a very modest cost. Drawer/Laser-serviced twice, still looks like new.
Most of my system is "pre-loved" (or perhaps sometimes "just got bored with" or pre-hated ), especially since most exdem/2ndhand dealers are very happy to offer home trial. I learnt a lot from such auditioning too.

4) Quick checks: the more obvious a given system/component is at revealing differences between recordings (about the hall, the individual sound of the performers and their position in the hall etc) the better it is, in the sense of being transparent to the signal passing through it.
Try lossless against 24/96, either stream or download. This won't invariably be the case (due to source/mastering variations)**, but If you can’t detect a difference, it is probably system, room or ears that is hiding it.

**One reason SACD quality is such a vexed question is precisely because so many discs are mastered from 24/96 (or lower) pcm. Either is certainly and often audibly a more highly resolved medium than CD, but again it depends on each recording and the component/system playing it.

I am very sceptical of blind testing because human perception tends to be sharper, the more information it has about what it is perceiving. If you watch the birds in the garden or hear them call, you’ll identify them faster, the more familiar you are with them.

Your approach to acquiring high end gear makes economic sense and is the way to go unless you are made of money but I had thought that blind testing of musicians for symphony orchestras is practised these days and seen as an improvement over open audition. Surely an orchestra wouldn't deliberately choose an inferior method of finding the best talent.