Dedicated CD player vs. DVD player

[j_garcia]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it an inability, however I would definitely call it a reluctance, or rather a bit of a prejudice even.

The ability to believe is just as strong as the ability to disbelieve. Those who say that someone hears a difference because they "want" to, or because they are influenced by looks or cost, well, there's merrit to that, but what about the fact that this also applies in the opposite case. If one goes into a test, including a DBT, already believing that there will be no difference, then is it not reasonable to say they will not hear a difference by the same token?

Nobody's convinced me yet that I don't know what I'm hearing with my own two ears.

What shall we debate next? Politics?

 

[WmAx]

So, there's NO difference AT ALL between a $1K player and a $100 player? The DAC and it's implementation, every electronic component in the singal path, has an influence on the sound. I suppose there's no difference in video DACs either?

Please explain the specific feature, it's properties, and it's effect on actual sound[referenced with a credible perceptual study], that can only be achieved with an 'expensive' player vs. a 'cheap' player. So far as video DACs, afraid that I don't keep up on video technology, so I can't really answer that one way or another. The "every electronic component in the signal path, has an influence on the sound" argument is without merit unless the effect is within human detectable differences in real application(s). Please refer to the first sentence of this reply.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

I hear you. The position some people take on this board is just as bad as the snake oil vendors. But, some poeple need to find away to justify their own inability or reluctance to spend money on excellent equipment that happens to be expensive.

If you are referring to me, your supposition is without merit. How horrible, that I[or anyone else] would require proof/validation of claims that go beyond the standard audiophile requirements of proof[that are very low, and usually amount to nothing more than "because I used my ears"].

-Chris

 

[j_garcia]

I don't think that was directed at any one person. Shall we ask for a scientific study to be done to verify that it was or wasn't?

It's your money. If you don't hear a difference, don't buy it. Radio Shack will be happy to have you as a customer, since all their gear is equally as good as everything else out there.

 

[WmAx]

I don't think that was directed at any one person. Shall we ask for a scientific study to be done to verify that it was or wasn't?

The first few words of post no. 23 made clear the condition of applicability of said post.

-Chris

 

[Sleestack]

If you are referring to me, your supposition is without merit. How horrible, that I[or anyone else] would require proof/validation of claims that go beyond the standard audiophile requirements of proof[that are very low, and usually amount to nothing more than "because I used my ears"].

-Chris

If you feel it was directed at you, I guess it applies.

Why does every thread need to be turned into a DBT geekfest and scientific study of every opinion on high end equipment? Someone posted a simple question and was answered based on personal experience.

You posted some random generalizations that didn't really add anything to the discussion.Then, you qualify it by saying... " I specify these things because some hi-end player designs have purposely modified one or the other to get audible effects." You treat as a dismissive qualification, the very reason one would choose to buy a high end player... b/c it has a distincitve sound that the listener likes. How many players have you listened to for more than 10 minutes? How many different players do you actually own. I gave specific examples based on equipment I own. Do you know anything about them or do you just assume my opinion is useless until I have subjected myself to a rigorous DBT.


Your agenda is getting obnoxious. Not everyone has the time to study audio. Some people just want to enjoy it. Unless you have specific comments on specific products, why turn every thread into a pulpit for linearity and affordable audio?

 

[mtrycrafts]

As much as you should be wary of snake oil peddlers here, be wary of those who speak based on what they read rather than real experiences..

What would that inlcude? Perhaps DBT protocol in listening comparisons to statistically significant results? Real level matched time alligned setups?
Or, just what audiophiles do, turn on and compare?
Which experience has merit to find real answers?

 

[WmAx]

Why does every thread need to be turned into a DBT geekfest and scientific study of every opinion on high end equipment?

[1]See the tag line under the Audioholics logo on the top left of the forum page? The line that says, "Pursuing the Truth in Audio & Video...". That's the reason.

Your agenda is getting obnoxious. Not everyone has the time to study audio. Some people just want to enjoy it. Unless you have specific comments on specific products, why turn every thread into a pulpit for linearity and affordable audio?

Refer to [1].

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

What I don't see is why people insist on arguing what one person hears and another does not, whether it is measureable or not.

The point is, are they hearing something that is real, or an imagined perception that is imaginery? What validity does an imagined differences have? What good is it to anyone else?

 

[Sleestack]

[1]See the tag line under the Audioholics logo on the top left of the forum page? The line that says, "Pursuing the Truth in Audio & Video...". That's the reason.



Refer to [1].

-Chris

Pursuing truth is one thing, being uninformative, repetitve and not having anything relevant to say about particular products being discussed, is another. I have read plenty of reviews by the writers on the main site. While they provide useful tests and results, they don't talk about products solely in terms of test data. Furthermore, they aren't sitting around rigorously DBT every product they review. They review specific products and provide useful objective information and subjective impressions. They don't drone on about DBT... and certainly don't turn every article into a mundane lecture on "Pursuing the Truth in Audio and Video."

 

[WmAx]

Pursuing truth is one thing, being uninformative, repetitve and not having anything relevant to say about particular products being discussed, is another.

Me, un-informative? You might not like what I type, but to accuse me of being un-informative is absurd. My purpose[primary function] here is to guide/help people understand the real underlying issues for sound reproduction. If you wish to research my posting history, it will be seen that I, almost always, go out of my way in providing high quality, in-depth information. I have provided more useful data in this thread, in response to the original inquiry, as compared to anyone else, as of this point. So far as being repetative; that is true. But, I have to be, because the answer is often the same. The answer does not change. When the answer is called for, it will be repeated. Random claims[without substantial basis] based on speculations of what someone thinks they hear drags this site down to the level of sites such as Audio Asylum. Also, even though some products do have purposefully induced non-linear performance of sufficient magnitude to be audible, this is not a typical practice, even for hi-end equipment. You make it sound as if the percieved differences in sound are nearly always a result of real physical differences. But this is not the case, as is supported by the multitude of 3rd party, in-depth measurements available on many modern electronics. You can see for yourself: Stereophile is an excellent source of 3rd party in-depth measurements, if not an excellent source of anything else. It is rare that hi-end products demonstrate signficant deviations. Those that do are usually oddball devices such as SET tube amplifiers or unfiltered aliasing DACs, for example. So what is left to explain the audible differences touted by nearly every reviewer/audiophile concerning nearly every piece[as opposed to just the unusual examples] of equipment, besides a vivid imagination?

I have read plenty of reviews by the writers on the main site. While they provide useful tests and results, they don't talk about products solely in terms of test data. Furthermore, they aren't sitting around rigorously DBT every product they review.

Nothing is perfect, including Audioholics reviews. Perhaps I take their tag line more seriously than they do? I only pointed to the text so that it is known what guides my actions here.

-Chris

 

[Sleestack]

Me, un-informative? You might not like what I type, but to accuse me of being un-informative is absurd. My purpose[primary function] here is to guide/help people understand the real underlying issues for sound reproduction. If you wish to research my posting history, it will be seen that I, almost always, go out of my way in providing high quality, in-depth information. I have provided more useful data in this thread, in response to the original inquiry, as compared to anyone else, as of this point. So far as being repetative; that is true. But, I have to be, because the answer is often the same. The answer does not change. When the answer is called for, it will be repeated. Random claims[without substantial basis] based on speculations of what someone thinks they hear drags this site down to the level of sites such as Audio Asylum. Also, even though some products do have purposefully induced non-linear performance of sufficient magnitude to be audible, this is not a typical practice, even for hi-end equipment. You make it sound as if the percieved differences in sound are nearly always a result of real physical differences. But this is not the case, as is supported by the multitude of 3rd party, in-depth measurements available on many modern electronics. You can see for yourself: Stereophile is an excellent source of 3rd party in-depth measurements, if not an excellent source of anything else. It is rare that hi-end products demonstrate signficant deviations. So what is left to explain the audible differences touted by nearly every reviewer/audiophile of such equipment, besides a vivid imagination?





-Chris

I have read plenty of your posts. How exactly do you think you were being informative in this thread? Obviously you think of your opinions quite highly, but don't assume everyone else does. Your self righteousness is what is absurd. Do you know anything about the specific products that were mentioned or do you just like interjecting your mantra in every post? Do you really think you are doing anyone a favor by being mindnumbingly boring instead of having useful information or impressions?

You have a mission... great. Perhaps you can spare us your indignation for a moment and allow the rest of us to talk about equipment in away that is not up to your standards. On the other hand, please enlighten us and tell us something useful about the products I have discussed.

 

[WmAx]

I have read plenty of your posts. How exactly do you think you were being informative in this thread?

Refer to [a].

Obviously you think of your opinions quite highly, but don't assume everyone else does. Your self righteousness is what is absurd.

Well, that's only because I have investigated these issues in depth, where as you[and most others] have not. How can I think highly of opinions that seem to be based on nothing more than speculation?

Do you know anything about the specific products that were mentioned or do you just like interjecting your mantra in every post?

[a] You should go back to page 1 and read from the beginning. Why? Because you have apparently forgotten what exactly it is that I responded to. In that perspective, your accusations/questions don't make sense.

-Chris

 

[Sleestack]

Refer to [a].



Well, that's only because I have investigated these issues in depth, where as you[and most others] have not. How can I think highly of opinions that seem to be based on nothing more than speculation?



[a] You should go back to page 1 and read from the beginning. Why? Because you have apparently forgotten what exactly it is that I responded to. In that perspective, your accusations/questions don't make sense.

-Chris

I see your original post, however I also see your diversion into the realm of "there's no difference between cheap players and expensive players," ...of course with your caveat to fall back on. Given that I had talked about the difference between various players a few posts prior, I think it is natural to assume that your statements were meant to be applicable to my post as well. Furthermore, you certainly haven't stated otherwise up to this point. Of course, I can't seem to get you to talk about any specific product, so perhaps we all just need to hit the books so we can reach your level of aural enlightenment.

You know what... you're right. Despite the fact that I have many wonderful pieces of equipment that I'm sure people would be interested to hear about, since mere impressions are useless, I'll refrain from posting until I do DBTs in a sensory depravation chamber.

 

[sploo]

Hey everyone, just chill for a moment and stop trying to kill the other guy.

Let's look at this logically:

Chris - you've posted many links in many threads to studies showing that the levels of artifacts such as jitter and distortion in modern players are well below audible human thresholds. OK, this is pretty convincing and hard to argue against.

j_garcia, Sleestack - I agree. I'm absolutely certain I've heard major differences in the sound that comes from different players. Whilst the tests haven't been blind I have performed a few tests where I didn't know the supposed relative qualities of players, so I at least had a minimum of expectation.

So, what are we left with?

Well, if you listen to two players, and prefer one, and it's within your budget then buy it and enjoy it.

If you're interested in the science, and/or don't want to spend more money than necessary, then look at the numbers.

A DBT really isn't that practical for most, so how can we quantitively show differences between players? I was thinking of making a CDR with a 20-20k sweep, and measuring the frequency response and distortion from various CD and DVD player's analog output stages.

The crux here is:

1. Can we settle on some reference sound file - e.g. a 20-20k sweep at some dB level over x seconds?
2. Chris, mtrycrafts would you agree that this is a valid measurement?
3. Sleestack, you have multiple players, would you agree to perform some tests? I guess you'd just need a PC and a copy of the RightMark Audio Analyzer (http://rightmark.org).

Alternatively, I'll supply you guys with big sticks, and you can hit one another repeatedly for our entertainment. Just make sure you video it .

 

[j_garcia]

Pursuing truth is one thing, being uninformative, repetitve and not having anything relevant to say about particular products being discussed, is another. I have read plenty of reviews by the writers on the main site. While they provide useful tests and results, they don't talk about products solely in terms of test data. Furthermore, they aren't sitting around rigorously DBT every product they review. They review specific products and provide useful objective information and subjective impressions. They don't drone on about DBT... and certainly don't turn every article into a mundane lecture on "Pursuing the Truth in Audio and Video."

Well said.

Alternatively, I'll supply you guys with big sticks, and you can hit one another repeatedly for our entertainment. Just make sure you video it

 

[Sleestack]

3. Sleestack, you have multiple players, would you agree to perform some tests? I guess you'd just need a PC and a copy of the RightMark Audio Analyzer (http://rightmark.org).

.

Can't promise that it will happen right away, but I would certainly be willing to do it with a little guidance. As I stated previously, I do not detect audible differences when using digital outs and running them through a common DAC, but the analog outputs (which are the ones I care about for Redbook) are a different story.

 

[j_garcia]

since mere impressions are useless, I'll refrain from posting until I do DBTs in a sensory depravation chamber.

Actually, we need to organize a group of people who were blind at birth, do a hearing assessment of them, then select from that group the 10 people who have the best range of hearing, and use them to do the listening. Music cannot be used, because music doesn't matter, only numbers, so only sweeps and pink noise will be used to conduct the testing.

The point is, are they hearing something that is real, or an imagined perception that is imaginery? What validity does an imagined differences have? What good is it to anyone else?

Hello, people don't all hear the same. What comes into your ear is the actual sound, that may be slightly modified by the particular person's overall hearing ability. Some people have a sensitivity to certain frequencies, while others may be unable to hear specific frequencies well. On top of that, what your brain processes of that signal is a perception, which means ALL HEARING is a perception, influenced by an individual's predisposition for listening for certain characteristics.

 

[miklorsmith]

My Vote

Sleestack has stuff that's nicer than mine. I welcome any experience he would like to share. The scientists are free to ignore it.

 

[j_garcia]

I can't seem to get you to talk about any specific product, so perhaps we all just need to hit the books so we can reach your level of aural enlightenment.

Let me add to that, along with something else Sleestack saidL: If you haven't actually listened to a variety of players in said configurations and conditions, or actually been a part of one of these DBTs, then all the data in the world doesn't validate your position to me. Does anyone besides Sleestack in this thread have the ability to compare a variety of units of different price categories?