are high $ CD BD players worth it?.

[Biovision]

When compared to the average Sony Panasonic Denon CD blueray players...are the high dollar ones (musical fidelity, rotel, oppo) really worth it?

If so what makes the difference..isn't the output digital...all 1s and 0s are the same are they not?

 

[zhimbo]

If you're sending a digital signal to a reciever, and the player plays the formats you want, and you're not using the video processing capabilities of the player (using your receiver instead), then yes, it's just a matter of 1's and 0's. There may be some issues of reliability/build quality, or reduced load times, etc., but if you can afford to buy 2 or 3 or 10 cheaper players for the price of one premium one, that may not be a concern.

If you need a truly universal player (for SACDs, for example) or you're using the on-board processing capabilities, (or you like Cool Stuff even if you don't use it) that may be a different story. That's generally a pretty specialized market, and if you don't already know you need some feature X, you probably aren't in that market.

If you DO need/want a high end player, the Oppo players seem to be excellent bargains (by high-end standards).

 

[jinjuku]

If we are talking about output over HDMI then the oppo is a great value for the $$ if you are into audio and video/philea.

What is the rest of your setup?

If you have some $500 speakers, not I wouldn't recommend a $1 or $2K BRP.

 

[Biovision]

added signature to include my setup

lets see if I did it right

 

[Irvrobinson]

When compared to the average Sony Panasonic Denon CD blueray players...are the high dollar ones (musical fidelity, rotel, oppo) really worth it?

If so what makes the difference..isn't the output digital...all 1s and 0s are the same are they not?

Your question isn't specific enough. For the digital output with a good DAC that eliminates jitter, I would say choose your disc player by the quality of the user interface, like controls, the remote, drive mechanism, look and feel, whatever. Assuming the disc player is sending the right bits, which is really analog signalling that corresponds to ones and zeroes, the DAC does the rest.

If you are using the disc player to output line-level analog audio signals, using the player's DAC, it is possible there are audible differences. The bulk of the empirical evidence says these differences are irrelevant, but the empirical evidence is formulated using double-blind tests. I've participated in two audio-related double-bind tests in my life, and the only conclusions I was able to draw was 1) I hate participating in double-blind tests, and I never will again, and 2) human are terrible at differentiating audible differences by memory, and I wouldn't trust my DBT results, or suggest that anyone make decisions based on tests I participated in.

If you believe in DBT results then all players sound the same, and choose whatever looks and functions best. I have compared three DVD players and a Blueray player to my high-end CD player and I'm convinced I hear compelling differences between the cheap-o things and my over-priced audio jewelry. I don't care what anyone else thinks. I'm paying so I decide.

A lot of brick and mortar dealers will let you try a sample of a "high-end" player in your own system. Compare it to a $69 DVD player and see what you think. If you can't hear a difference take back the sample and thank them kindly. If you think you can hear a difference, well, my condolences.

 

[adwilk]

My Elite player sounds much better than the cheap one I had. Because I need it to to justify it. Certainly the load-time is faster, and it looks shinier, but it sounds the same. I will say that higher-end players do a much better job in the upconverting arena, but as far as audio goes, I'm just not convinced.

Even if you compare a DAC that functions flawlessly to one that operates at even 75% efficiency- the data loss would likely not be audible. Unless one is actually changing or skewing data, the argument is that they would "sound" the same by the time all the magic happens to bring sound to your ears.

I enjoy my high-er-end player more because of the thought of no compromise, but I don't think I can actually hear the electronics. Sometimes the hobby is more than just perception. Your choice.

 

[BMXTRIX]

If you have 100% digital transport to your A/V receiver than the only thing that matters is that you get clean transfer of the information without any skewing of the data on the disc. While this may seem completely typical, it is now known that some Sony players do not do this. The Oppo player does do this and the Panasonic DMP-BDT210 does this as well. So, a $500 player and a $130 player perform identically when using the entirely digital side of things.

Now, if you want to use the analog side, then you may have a lot more reason to jump through some higher priced hoops to get the benefits of better product. But, in general, you will be very happy with about any player on the market. Until you are pairing up a digital transport with a $2,000 subwoofer, and $1,000 per speaker setups (minimum!) you likely would never know a difference.

Still loving my PS3.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... 2) human are terrible at differentiating audible differences by memory, and I wouldn't trust my DBT results,...

Well, that is not so. After all, a number of respectable places use it to test, evaluate and improve products with that reliable method. And, to arrive at journal published results such as JND thresholds, etc.
Besides, don't you use audio memory in a sighted listening test as well? Or, just let your eyes take over

If you believe in DBT results then all players sound the same,

Well, that is also not true. There have been published differences in the past, a number of them.

I have compared three DVD players and a Blueray player to my high-end CD player and I'm convinced I hear compelling differences between the cheap-o things and my over-priced audio jewelry.

But of course, but not under bias controlled conditions, right?

I don't care what anyone else thinks. I'm paying so I decide.

Yep, that is one way to look at it

If you think you can hear a difference, well, my condolences.

Why bother to take it home is that is a criteria, think? Wouldn't knowing be better?

 

[Irvrobinson]

... 2) human are terrible at differentiating audible differences by memory, and I wouldn't trust my DBT results,...

Well, that is not so. After all, a number of respectable places use it to test, evaluate and improve products with that reliable method. And, to arrive at journal published results such as JND thresholds, etc.
Besides, don't you use audio memory in a sighted listening test as well? Or, just let your eyes take over

Frankly, I think DBTs are used because we don't know any other way to tell if humans are really able to differentiate between experiences. My feeling was that I found the tests stressful and felt I was guessing most of the time, hence my conclusion that the results were of low value. I also don't see why anyone else would be substantially better at it than I was. I suppose it is possible that long-term DBTs might yield more value, because you could test listener fatigue, which is a common complaint with sub-par equipment.

As for my sighted decisions, I'm not kidding myself into thinking they're unbiased. I'm just not afraid to make decisions on the best information available, and I don't ever present it to anyone else except as a decision I've made.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Well, that is also not true. There have been published differences in the past, a number of them.

How about posting references? I've never seen one, and many other posters have claimed no such test results exist.

 

[adwilk]

As for my sighted decisions, I'm not kidding myself into thinking they're unbiased. I'm just not afraid to make decisions on the best information available, and I don't ever present it to anyone else except as a decision I've made.

You make some good points. Just because DBT is the best method, doesnt mean its necessarily good. Its results are consistent, though, and that seems to be enough. I too, don't like them and I actually think I begin looking for sounds that are or aren't there. Either way- I appreciate the science behind it all and also don't try to convince myself that my sighted opinions are unbiased. I know they are and I like it that way. I can't wait to hear how much better these speakers I'm working on now sound with a new paint job on the outside. I can already feel the spaciousness these babies are gonna have.

 

[Irvrobinson]

YI too, don't like them and I actually think I begin looking for sounds that are or aren't there. Either way- I appreciate the science behind it all and also don't try to convince myself that my sighted opinions are unbiased. I know they are and I like it that way. I can't wait to hear how much better these speakers I'm working on now sound with a new paint job on the outside. I can already feel the spaciousness these babies are gonna have.

Bingo - you begin to hear things. I should have mentioned that too.

As for the paint job... a good portion of the entire high-end audio industry is making the exact same bet, but they're often doing it with machined aluminum or exposed vacuum tubes. So good luck with the paint!

 

[adwilk]

Bingo - you begin to hear things. I should have mentioned that too.

As for the paint job... a good portion of the entire high-end audio industry is making the exact same bet, but they're often doing it with machined aluminum or exposed vacuum tubes. So good luck the paint!

Ooooohhhhh... Good call... I'm gonna cut a window and install some vacuum tubes. Wow, these speakers sound good.

 

[3db]

Maybe from aesthetics department, high end players are better. They may sound marginally better but I think its well into the point of diminshing returms. If I had spare cash to burn, I would buy this one just on looks alone.

 

[Adam]

If I had spare cash to burn, I would buy this one just on looks alone.

Agreed! That is a nice looking piece of machinery.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Maybe from aesthetics department, high end players are better. They may sound marginally better but I think its well into the point of diminshing returms. If I had spare cash to burn, I would buy this one just on looks alone.

It looks like Stromberg's underwater home in the movie The Spy Who Loved Me.

 

[rgriffin25]

For me it's build quality and aesthetics. I don't know why manufacturers think we need a disc player that's thinner than a deck of cards. I would love to see a player that is built like my old Sony BDP-S1.

 

[DD66000]

From the standpoint of analog playback, a cheap cd, dvd player's dac is most likely crap. I bought a Sony cd player in '93 and then a cheapo DVD-A/SACD player in '05. Both were very inferior to the Denon 1931ci player I bought in '07. The difference was the quality of the dac.

 

[mtrycrafts]

How about posting references? I've never seen one, and many other posters have claimed no such test results exist.

There were some published in these:

Masters, Ian G 'Do All CD Players Sound the Same?' Stereo review, Jan 1986, pg 50-57.

Pohlmann, Ken C. '6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?' Stereo Review, Dec 1988, pg 76-84.

Pohlmann, Ken C. 'The New CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?' Stereo Review, Oct 1990, pg 60-67.


Sure they are old players but DBT detected the differences in a statistically significant degree. And one test not published in a magazine but in a club newsletter discovered a broken digit in a 14 bit player
Today's players are much more difficult to differentiate if not impossible.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Maybe from aesthetics department, high end players are better. ...

That is a valid reason to buy them after all, some paintings go for 7 and 8 figures