Now that the contents of a CD can be held in RAM, never mind in other
cheaper and still very fast digital storage, what does an expensive CD
player offer that a cheap transport and a decent digital-to-analog
converter cannot?

If DAC products can buffer seconds' or even minutes' worth of data, and
can stream it out to the actual DAC circuitry with GHz precision, there
doesn't seem to be much need any more for costly CD players.

Am I missing something?

Daniele

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:39:34 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Now that the contents of a CD can be held in RAM, never mind in other
cheaper and still very fast digital storage, what does an expensive CD
player offer that a cheap transport and a decent digital-to-analog
converter cannot?

If DAC products can buffer seconds' or even minutes' worth of data, and
can stream it out to the actual DAC circuitry with GHz precision, there
doesn't seem to be much need any more for costly CD players.

Am I missing something?

Daniele

Yup, the power of marketing to the rich and gullible. This works
particularly well on those with just a little technical knowledge -
enough, for example to understand that jitter is a bad thing, but not
enough to know that it has nothing to do with the CD's drive
mechanism.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:39:34 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Now that the contents of a CD can be held in RAM, never mind in
other
cheaper and still very fast digital storage, what does an expensive
CD
player offer that a cheap transport and a decent digital-to-analog
converter cannot?

If DAC products can buffer seconds' or even minutes' worth of data,
and
can stream it out to the actual DAC circuitry with GHz precision,
there
doesn't seem to be much need any more for costly CD players.

Am I missing something?

Daniele

Yup, the power of marketing to the rich and gullible. This works
particularly well on those with just a little technical knowledge -
enough, for example to understand that jitter is a bad thing, but
not
enough to know that it has nothing to do with the CD's drive
mechanism.



What is more, how many people that use memory storage of any sort do
it in a high quality format such as Flac or Ogg? For that matter even
mp3 or m4a (=AAC) at a high rate rather than the 128K mp3 which most
seem to use.

At least with a good quality CD it does sound a bit like the real
thing - but how many people go to live concerts (I'm thinking
classical in any form, jazz, big band or MoR here) these days to know
what real instruments actually sound like?



--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

On 12/11/2017 15:21, Woody wrote:

snip

At least with a good quality CD it does sound a bit like the real
thing - but how many people go to live concerts (I'm thinking
classical in any form, jazz, big band or MoR here) these days to know
what real instruments actually sound like?


'A bit'? In my experience of mainly rock/pop, nothing like a live
performance. Even if a domestic hifi could achieve the volume levels,
it'd take a heck of system (and room) to reproduce the bass etc and
'venue' acoustics of live music.

As for jazz etc it's always been amplified IME - even some (apparently)
world class performers who for reasons uncertain take in Sheffield as
part of their circuit. So to know what a 'real' instrument sounds like
becomes complicated for a lot of us. Classical music can sound
impressive, and close I'd imagine to a live performance - but I'd only
go to maybe one classical concert a year. It's certainly not 'being there'.

I have a few notable exceptions in my collection, mainly acoustic
instruments. My favourite is a Louis Armstrong one-take set, from the
60s IIRC. The woodwind instruments in particular sound absolutely
uncanny - real 'in the room' stuff. On vinyl, of course :-)

On the OP's query - the point of expensive CD players - I'd list
aesthetics and badge-value as significant variables. Huge diminishing
returns in terms of audio quality - if that.

Speakers and room are the most important variables, given that the
source and amplification are now pretty much sorted for not obscene
amounts of money. The ATC speaker based system I have at the moment is
the best yet in terms of dynamics and presence. I feel the only
improvement I could make now would be to move house.

I had a Quad electrostatic based system for a while. Very impressive -
if you sit still :-)



--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
RJH wrote:
At least with a good quality CD it does sound a bit like the real
thing - but how many people go to live concerts (I'm thinking
classical in any form, jazz, big band or MoR here) these days to know
what real instruments actually sound like?


'A bit'? In my experience of mainly rock/pop, nothing like a live
performance. Even if a domestic hifi could achieve the volume levels,
it'd take a heck of system (and room) to reproduce the bass etc and
'venue' acoustics of live music.

You'd hardly ever set out to record a live gig as heard from the audience.
The trend is to make it as close to a studio session as possible.

--
*Be more or less specific *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/11/2017 13:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
At least with a good quality CD it does sound a bit like the real
thing - but how many people go to live concerts (I'm thinking
classical in any form, jazz, big band or MoR here) these days to know
what real instruments actually sound like?


'A bit'? In my experience of mainly rock/pop, nothing like a live
performance. Even if a domestic hifi could achieve the volume levels,
it'd take a heck of system (and room) to reproduce the bass etc and
'venue' acoustics of live music.

You'd hardly ever set out to record a live gig as heard from the audience.
The trend is to make it as close to a studio session as possible.


Yes of course - partly my point in fact. You wouldn't want a version of
the live performance as experienced.

--
Cheers, Rob

Once upon a time on usenet Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2017-11-12, Woody wrote:

At least with a good quality CD it does sound a bit like the real
thing - but how many people go to live concerts (I'm thinking
classical in any form,

[FX] Waves ...

Okay, in for a penny...

In my experience of building and buying hi-fi (50years+) I have never
ever felt that I needed anything other than the two (or more) items
of kit and a good listen. The idea of needing a live reference is
utter Bunkum, you don't. I've been to many classical concerts and a
few rock ones but it doesn't help in the slightest. For a start off
your acoustic memory is way too poor. *If* two pieces of kit sound
different it is never a problem to work out which you prefer then
hope you can afford it. :-)

In the early 1980s swmbo and I didn't like the sound of CD players,
that is not to say that they had anything wrong, I don't know if they
did or not but we didn't like them. It wasn't until Meridian came
along with their 207 that for us CD became pleasurable. We pushed the
boat out and got the 207. A couple of years later the 208 was quite a
bit better still and we somehow found the folding to upgrade. We
tried green pens/rings and weights but never heard any difference and
so did not purchase.

We were more than happy with the 208 for decades until we decided to
start ripping our discs and streaming. At that point I learnt through
ripping thousands of CDs that discs have very, very few problems that
a £10 PC cd rom drive can't cope with. In my mind this confirms I was
right to not be talked into buying the green pens etc and an
expensive transport is not required.

IMHO, the dac, analogue electronics and the power supply are where any
audible differences are to be found.

Bob.

I remember when Perreaux* made their first CD player - they said about the
same as you just did and actually used a PC CDROM transport but of course in
their own box with their own PS, DAC and analogue stage.

* I live in NZ and, as an ex-live soundmixer who used to use their gear at
gigs and lover of fidelity Perreaux is almost a reference for me.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
The idea of needing a live reference is utter Bunkum, you don't. I've
been to many classical concerts and a few rock ones but it doesn't help
in the slightest.

You do push that boat rather too far. :-)

If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like, how
would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto for the
sound of a broadcast from a given hall?

If you don't give a damn for what the sound in the hall was, then, yes, you
can just pick a system, etc, for a Hi-Fi (sic) which acts as music box and
plays the noises you like. But that is a music box not a High *Fidelity*
system.

By repeatedly going to venues, hearing real instruments, etc, and
comparing, over some years, you can get at least a fair idea of what sounds
at home more like what you hear in the hall.

*If* you want to feel at home that what you hear sounds like what you heard
when at the venue, then that is a big help.

*If* you don't give a damn for that and just want a music box, fair enough.
But please don't assume that applies to *everyone* else. If your concern is
*fidelity* to real acoustic music being able to get some idea of what that
sounds like would matter..


IMHO, the dac, analogue electronics and the power supply are where any
audible differences are to be found.

This takes for granted that the disc was read with complete accuracy and
reliabilty. This isn't so in *every* case. And when it isn't, you may find
one player can get details which another may have misread. This should be a
rare problem, but in the real world rare events do still occur. How much
this matters is for the individual to decide.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like,
how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto for
the sound of a broadcast from a given hall?

It's one reason why well recorded male speech is a very good test of a
speaker, etc. Especially if you can have the same person speaking live.
Everyone has heard a bloke speak for real. But not that many a solo Strad
close to in an average room. ;-)

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Jim Lesurf
writes:

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
The idea of needing a live reference is utter Bunkum, you don't. I've
been to many classical concerts and a few rock ones but it doesn't help
in the slightest.

You do push that boat rather too far. :-)

If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like, how
would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto for the
sound of a broadcast from a given hall?

I doubt very much that the Chinese violin sitting in one of my
cupboards upstairs sounds exactly like a Strad or Amati. So while
hearing a violin live will help in general terms, even with absolute
auditory recollection, unless you're listening to exactly the same
instrument, the tone will vary to a greater or lesser extent.

--
Mike Fleming