CD Players with Audiophile Sound

[m. zillch]

I saw a video on Youtube recently [sorry, I forget the title] which said the whole "180 gram" reissue thing was just a scam to convince us to rebuy LPs. The guy claimed (but didn't provide a link) saying some engineer closely examined (I guess with a microscope) the dead wax in the lead out area both for the engineer's hand written catalog numbers and also I think closely examining little micro divots/bumps/scratches and discovered the exact same stamper had been used for the "new and improved" rellease.

Sure, one could argue a heavier/thicker disc is less likely to warp. . . and I guess the added weight may act a tad like a "record weight" to damp vibrations, maybe, but the notion the mastering/cutting (etching) etc. was "better" was baloney! It came from the same source!

 

[Squishman]

I saw a video on Youtube recently [sorry, I forget the title] which said the whole "180 gram" reissue thing was just a scam to convince us to rebuy LPs. The guy claimed (yet didn't provide a link) saying some engineer closely examined (I guess with a microscope) the dead wax in the lead out area both for the engineer's hand written catalog numbers and also I think closely examining little micro divots/bumps/scratches and discovered the exact same stamper had been used for the "new and improved" release.

Sure one could argue a heavier/thicker disc is less likely to warp. . . and I guess the added weight may act a tad like a "record weight" to damp vibrations, maybe, but the notion the mastering/cutting (etching) etc. was "better" was baloney!

That's why you do research before you buy any given release. I don't care about how heavy the vinyl is. Or at least that has no bearing on if is or isn't a good pressing. Pretty sure just about any record pressed in the last 20 years is heavier vinyl. Usually never really 180 g. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but they always (Usually erroneously) say 180 g.

 

[m. zillch]

Personally, I've decided to no longer make decisions about audio based on sighted listening comparisons by anyone, including myself. They're too prone to cognitive bias.

 

[mono-bloc]

SACD is as good as dead. It should never have seen the light of day.

What you say my well be correct, But SACD has a big following for the Classical music user. Unfortunately costs are high, when it comes to SACD players,
which mostly are Transports only. I won't go into makes and models except to say the current leader for the buying public is Esoteric Grandioso. [ manufactured by Teac , ]

Perhaps you would like to comment on DVD-A which also has a small following

 

[m. zillch]

2ch. SACD discs cost a lot, the players cost a lot, and there is no audible difference compared to CDs when they are both from the same master and compared under valid conditions. So they make no sense.

 

[TLS Guy]

2ch. SACD discs cost a lot, the players cost a lot, and there is no audible difference compared to CDs when they are both from the same master and compared under valid conditions.

The top line Sony BD players play SACD discs and are a very reasonable price. I do have some five channel SACDs principally the BIS recordings of the Minnesota Orchestra under Osmo Vanska. They are 5.1 recordings.

All this Audiophile nonsense is just marketers' con jobs. I don't think I have a recording in my collection that claims to be so called 'Audiophile. That is all total BS. There are just good and bad recordings in any format and everything in between. In the classical sphere the vast, vast majority of recordings are well engineered.

 

[Squishman]

The top line Sony BD players play SACD discs and are a very reasonable price. I do have some five channel SACDs principally the BIS recordings of the Minnesota Orchestra under Osmo Vanska. They are 5.1 recordings.

All this Audiophile nonsense is just marketers' con jobs. I don't think I have a recording in my collection that claims to be so called 'Audiophile. That is all total BS. There are just good and bad recordings in any format and everything in between. In the classical sphere the vast, vast majority of recordings are well engineered.

Sorry I used the word "audiophile"". How 'bout just "better"?

 

[TLS Guy]

Sorry I used the word "audiophile"". How 'bout just "better"?

That is much more descriptive. However labelling it "Audiophile" far from guarantees it is actually better.

 

[m. zillch]

Sorry I used the word "audiophile"". How 'bout just "better"?

If there's nothing detectably wrong with your existing CD player what is it exactly which would make another one's performance "better" exactly?

Here's an analogy. Do you own either a 12" ruler or perhaps a meter/yard stick? Have you ever pondered throwing it away because you want one that's "better"? If your ruler is actually 12.00003 inches long instead of exactly 12.00000, how would that impact your actual use?

 

[Squishman]

If there's nothing detectably wrong with your existing CD player what is it exactly which would make another one's performance "better" exactly?

Here's an analogy. Do you own either a 12" ruler or perhaps a meter/yard stick? Have you ever pondered throwing it away because you want one that's "better"? If your ruler is actually 12.00003 inches long instead of exactly 12.00000, how would that impact your actual use?

I was referring to Mark having issue with the word. I believe it was in regard to better pressings of a given record.

 

[m. zillch]

Individual copies of LPs can differ in sound—say for example a different number or locations of occasional pops and ticks—but non defective CDs made from the same master all sound exactly the same to all people through all systems. There is no "better". Making a CD that's supposedly "24 karat gold", for example, [as DCC seems to claim] has zero impact on the sound. This, for example, is baloney:

"Our 24 Karat Gold discs reproduce the ultimate sound of a classic recorded performance without the digital harshness and irregular plated surfaces of standard aluminum discs. "

If they indeed used an original master tape instead of the standard CD using one that is multiple generations away*, or they used the exceedingly common trick of duping consumers into thinking they are getting "better" simply by subtly manipulating the level of the recording a fraction of a dB, then sure it can sound, um, "better". [In the case of level manipulation it actually just sounds detectably different and careful readjustment of playback volume would instantly erase that, um, "benefit".]



*Ostensibly Phoebe Snow, or any artist for that matter, wants their music to sound good so why on earth would she say, "When you initially release this on CD it is important to me that you don't use the original master tape and instead use one that is multiple generations away from it." ?!

 

[Squishman]

Holy crap. How hard is this to understand... Take for example an OP of Steely Dan's "Katy Lied", which Becker and Fagen had a huge problem with how it sounded. Now, consider the 2025 remaster, which is great. Or better. I used a different word for "better". So what. I used the word as an adjective. Not the end of the world.

 

[m. zillch]

Steve Hoffman remastering? [DCC Phoebe Snow cover claim] Isn't he the guy who thinks placing these ~$1200 upright coat racks "sound modifiers" in his listening room "alters" the sound?

My position on "Hallographs" is that used as they describe they do squat . [Sure, something drastic along the lines of completely blocking a dome tweeter by placing one of their wooden bars an inch in front of it to kill its direct output path could impact sound, but that's not how they suggest using them.]

 

[Squishman]

 

[TLS Guy]

Holy crap. How hard is this to understand... Take for example an OP of Steely Dan's "Katy Lied", which Becker and Fagen had a huge problem with how it sounded. Now, consider the 2025 remaster, which is great. Or better. I used a different word for "better". So what. I used the word as an adjective. Not the end of the world.

The need to remaster implies a significant level of incompetence right from the start.

I am probably to only member who has mastered recordings, mainly for LP but later CD. Funnily enough I listened to some of those recordings recently and there was not a thing I would want change. I guess there are clowns in the pop universe, who can't get it right the first time. My motto is do it right, do it once.

 

[Squishman]

The need to remaster implies a significant level of incompetence right from the start.

I am probably to only member who has mastered recordings, mainly for LP but later CD. Funnily enough I listened to some of those recordings recently and there was not a thing I would want change. I guess there are clowns in the pop universe, who can't get it right the first time. My motto is do it right, do it once.

Most artists wouldn't have control over that, Steely Dan was p.o.ed. They didn't even want to promote it because it wasn't good enough. The label picks the engineers, etc. Unless they get huge in the industry. Then I imagine they can say "Bernie Grundman", and the suits would have to comply.

 

[m. zillch]

There is a significant "need" for them to remaster music: a need to make as much money as possible by reselling us the same album as many times as they possibly can. [Not to say that's always the reason but I suspect it happens much more frequently than most people realize.]

The funniest ones are keyed to dates and anniversaries: "Special, limited edition, 25th anniversary remastering" Um, gosh, I wonder what technologically happens between year 24 and year 25 that necessitates a re-mastering, exactly? . . . Do the original imaging molecules evaporate off then? [sarcasm]