Search results

Serious long-winded alert! Both of you guys need to learn how to edit.:eek:

Just make sure that the Klipsch sound appeals to you first. Some of us find them excessively bright.

Something else to consider: If you have an older TV, make sure it has HDMI. Mine does not, and I have not run across an upconverting player that will send >480p signals over component.

My conclusion is that is is best to stick with what I have, since I enjoy listening to them.

Exactly, well put. There are lots of valid reasons for wanting an expensive CDP, "better" sound quality just doesn't happen to be one of them.

Upconverting DVD players have gotten so cheap these days that you might as well try one and find out. They rarely cost over $50 or so more than their non-upconverting cousins.

No, it is nothing at all like saying that. Speakers are analog devices interpreting analog signals, and therefore accomodate infinite shades of grey. DACs, in stark contrast, decode digital signals. This is an all or nothing process (the output is either correct or incorrect, and it is...

While there are differences in the specific algorithms used to implement it, all DACs are based on the same underlying mathematics (the sampling theorem.) This theorem proves that the resulting analog output will be identical to the original analog input at all frequencies up to 1/2 the sampling...

Not A/B in my own system, since that would entail bringing home an expensive CDP which I am not inclined to do. I compared an entry-level Sony DVD player and a top-of-the-line Classe (using analog outs, of course) in the same Classe/B&W system. I compared a friend's expensive Kyocera CD player...

Yes, I have heard expensive CD players. None of them even mildly impressed me, much less "blew me away". The alleged improvements you describe are all descriptions that apply to analog devices, and do not apply to DACs.

The information encoded on a CD is not intended to be "interpreted". It is a specific signal that can only be correctly decoded in one way. If two CDPs sound different (all else being the same, of course), then at least one of them is doing something wrong. Indeed, since it is only the expensive...

How my system sounds to me is the only thing that is relevant. If someone else likes something else better, that is fine for them.

You are discussing a radically different league than the one I am playing in. I was thinking in terms of moving from a $200 pair of monitors and an amp that was around $800 new (and is now only available used around $400) to a pair of powered monitors in the $300-$600/pr range.:cool:

You are missing the point. Even if I were going to go very, very far past the 1k point for speakers, I would still not believe that an expensive CDP would give any benefit SQ wise (I might spend more for build quality, convenience features, longevity, and/or looks.) A DAC either decodes the...

That is pretty bizzare marketing. I hate to support Wal Mart, but if it turns out to be a great CD (which seems likely, being The Eagles), I will probably buy it there.

"Has anybody seen the bridge?"-Led Zeppelin.:p

Nice rant, but I don't believe a word of it. I would have no problem using a $50 DVD player as the source in a system costing many thousands of $. (With almost all of the money going into speakers.)

I have never believed that there is any sonic difference between CD players, so long as they work properly. Sounding "as good as a $1000 CDP" does not seem like much of an accomplishment to me, as a $50 DVD player can do that. (The only exception I can think of is portables, and then only...

Even with a center identical to the mains, placement and room acoustics will prevent it from being a perfect timber match. This is why I prefer phantom center. I would upgrade the sub and not get a center at all. (Actually, I don't use a sub either, but only because my mains produce...

All technically great. Not one on the female list that I actually enjoy listening to, though. The males did better, with 3/10.:)