| Author |
Thread: Opinions on these players? |
    
Bronze Member Username: Darrenmc
Winnipeg,
Manitoba
Canada
Post Number: 46
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 10:44 pm: |
|
Looking for some opinions on any of these players, if you've owned one or auditioned one:
Arcam FMJ CD36
Arcam CD192
Cambridge Audio Azur 840C
Creek Evolution
Simaudio(Moon)CD-1
Shanling CDT80
I realize all these players have different price points but these are some that I can audition so any input would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! |
|
Relevant Product Info
|
|
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 9658
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 07:49 am: |
|
DM, so many auditions on so many different kits could leave you worse for wear.
The Creek Evo is very good.
At one point I had
Rega Apollo
Rotel 1072
Classe cdt1 transport&CD1 DAC
Puter w/S/Pdif to dac
Even that was a bit much at times.
See what you can bring home to try. |
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 12136
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 07:10 pm: |
|
.
From that list I'd say you need to get a handle on what you want your system to do. Determine your priorities and that should eliminate at least half the prospects. We've already told you about synergy within a system in your various threads but this list doesn't indicate you caught the idea.
So, rather than us tell you what we think, why don't you tell us what you think of these players and why you'd own any of them. I can only assume you picked these players after reading reviews or blurbs. So what caught your attention? How do you feel any one player will fit into your system, and what are your priorities?
Give us more information and we'll comment on how close you seem to have come to a synergistic match up. Otherwise, we do all the work and you still have no idea how to put together a system.
. |
Bronze Member Username: Darrenmc
Winnipeg,
Manitoba
Canada
Post Number: 47
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 11:22 pm: |
|
Jan,
These players were picked out because they are available here and fit in my price range. I'm sure there are other players out there in this range that are just as good but I don't want to buy blind. From what I've read they are all quality players form quality companies. I guess my goal is to A) Bring the CD player up to level of the rest of the system that will lead to improvement of my system as a whole B) Upgrade from the NAD C542 but with something I can get longterm use out of 7-10 years, something that is a bit future proof c) Synergy is important but not a must that it matches the receiver brand(Arcam AVR300)
If this helps most of the music I listen to is hard rock, heavy metal. I like a clean but powerful sound, if that makes sense. Being I have Monitor Audio Silver series speakers they are a tad on the bright side so a CD player with the same characteristic may not be a good choice. I don't have much experience with CD players and sound as I had a Denon DCM340 player for 12 years. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 9685
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 07:56 am: |
|
D, look at room treatments if you find the MA's bright. Soften the room a bit, then add the Rotel 1072 to your list. |
Gold Member Username: Stu_pitt
Irvington,
New York
USA
Post Number: 2410
Registered: May-05
|
| Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 09:38 am: |
|
"Synergy is important but not a must that it matches the receiver brand(Arcam AVR300)"
If you want the system to sound good enough that you won't get the urge to upgrade again for the mechanical life of the CD player, system synergy is a must. IMO, if the system doesn't have it, the system's not worth having.
If you like what the Arcam receiver is doing for your system, you should focus on the Arcam CD players. When you auditioned your receiver in the store listening to music, what CD player did they use? Soundwise, what will a different brand source do in your system? What will any CD player do in your system that your current CD player isn't doing?
I'd go to the dealer who sold you your speakers and receiver and audition the CD players that they carry, using your own music. That way you'll know what your system will ultimately sound like.
The Arcam FMJ CD36 is a very good CD player. It should synergize perfectly and last a very long time. |
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 12145
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 03:28 pm: |
|
.
"Synergy is important but not a must that it matches the receiver brand(Arcam AVR300)"
Well, I see I was right about not understanding "synergy". Matching components do not have to remain in the same line when listening for "synergy". Hopefully, multiple components within the same manufacturer's line up should have a sysnergistic total, but other lines may also have complimentary traits which benefit the best qualities of the system and gain what you wish to achieve as a whole.
"If this helps most of the music I listen to is hard rock, heavy metal. I like a clean but powerful sound, if that makes sense."
No, it doesn't really in that most people won't ask for muddy sound. I'm going to get squeals of disapproval here but, IMO, if you're listening to hard rock/heavy metal, then many of the qualities of a better source are going to be lost simply due to the way such groups are recorded.
I'm not certain you can truly expect any digital source to remain viable for 7-10 years time. A player with a higher quality of construction might last that long but I suspect its performance will be outdated long before it rolls over and plays dead. Hopefully, if you're wanting long term usgage, the manufacturer will be dedicated to supporting their products in the long term.
I haven't heard any of the prospective players but, from what I read, I would go with what appears to be the most neutral of the bunch. That, IMO, would appear to be the Cambridge.
. |
Silver Member Username: Dmitchell
Ottawa,
Ontario
Canada
Post Number: 575
Registered: Feb-07
|
| Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 03:57 pm: |
|
Got dibs on the first squeal of disapproval, Jan. |
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 12146
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 04:18 pm: |
|
.
Uh-huh
So go ahead and squeal. |
|
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pitt
Irvington,
New York
USA
Post Number: 2412
Registered: May-05
|
| Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 04:25 pm: |
|
I read the OP's synergy statement wrong. I thought he was saying synergy wasn't important. Now that I re-read it, I realize he was saying that brand matching wasn't important.
My bad. |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 9692
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 06:08 pm: |
|
I will pony up and defend rock music. I ain't Jack Black, but good RnR is very difficult to pull off in a kit.
The timing and delivery of these pieces is critical. A slow or lazy delivery takes the edge offa Gibbons' guitar work.
A long roll off of a riff removes the urgency of a piece. I had a very good recording of diver down(Van Halen) and the delivery on my trans/dac was uninspiring. The Rotel just made me play air guitar, really.
I would not suggest a smooth or flexible player for good 'ol RnR, thus the Rotel suggestion.I listen to James Taylor on the Apollo.
I listen to classical and jazz on the trans/dac.My name is Nuck and I am neurotic.'Hiiii Nuck' |
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 12170
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 06:23 pm: |
|
.
Is that it? One defense of high end CD players for hard rock?
I rest my case.
Nuck - I never considered ZZTop to be a hard rock band. I always thought of them as an electrified boogie band. OTOH, Nugent is hard rock.
. |
Bronze Member Username: Darrenmc
Winnipeg,
Manitoba
Canada
Post Number: 48
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 07:56 pm: |
|
So Jan based on this statement:
"No, it doesn't really in that most people won't ask for muddy sound. I'm going to get squeals of disapproval here but, IMO, if you're listening to hard rock/heavy metal, then many of the qualities of a better source are going to be lost simply due to the way such groups are recorded."
It would be pointless for me to move to a better cd player just because I listen to Hard Rock/Heavy Metal?
Also "I'm not certain you can truly expect any digital source to remain viable for 7-10 years time. A player with a higher quality of construction might last that long but I suspect its performance will be outdated long before it rolls over and plays dead. Hopefully, if you're wanting long term usgage, the manufacturer will be dedicated to supporting their products in the long term."
I don't disagree with this statement and I know 5-7 years down the road the performance will be outdated but I would like to purchase something that will be a bit future proof. |
Gold Member Username: Artk
Albany,
Oregon
USA
Post Number: 6059
Registered: Feb-05
|
| Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 08:05 pm: |
|
Darren I think, from reading reviews and general information online, that the Cambridge 840C seems to be about as close to what you are looking for as there is in that or anywhere near that price range. Move up from there to the Rega Saturn. |
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 12171
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 08:08 pm: |
|
.
No, I didn't say it would be pointless to buy a high end player. There are more reasons than sound quality alone to buy a high end, well designed/constructed player, particularly if you're tired of the feeding the market every three or four years. A better player is a better player. Period.
My intention was to suggest the fine differences between the players you're considering will be obscured in many ways by a library containing nothing more than hard rock and heavy metal. Not, as some may think, because I am not a fan of those genres but due to the typical manner in which those genres are recorded and produced.
. |
Silver Member Username: Dmitchell
Ottawa,
Ontario
Canada
Post Number: 584
Registered: Feb-07
|
| Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 09:54 am: |
|
While that may be true for a certain amount of hard rock/metal albums, there's also many, many albums in these genres that have excellent production. |
Bronze Member Username: Darrenmc
Winnipeg,
Manitoba
Canada
Post Number: 50
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 01:17 pm: |
|
Had a chance to demo the Simaudio(Moon) CD-1 player today at a local store. Couldn't really gauge anything from it as there were some cinema speakers hooked up to it, I need a home demo. I can purchase it and return it within 14 days if I don't like it though. Seems like a quality CD player, price tag was $1,499.00CDN. Anyone have any experience with this cd player? It's Simaudio's entry level cd player but the next player in line of theirs is double the price. |
Gold Member Username: Stu_pitt
Irvington,
New York
USA
Post Number: 2415
Registered: May-05
|
| Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 02:06 pm: |
|
That SimAudio player just came out Darren. You're going to be hard pressed to find a lot of info on it.
Judging from SimAudio's track record, it should be a very good player, both in terms of sound and build quality. SimAudio doesn't make junk. Their gear is expensive, but you definitely get what you pay for.
Not to say that they're incapable of making a single bad product though.
Regarding if its worth it to pay for a better player even though you're only listening to rock/metal...
If you can hear a difference and have the money, its absolutely worth it. I listen to a classic rock, alt rock, and metal almost exclusively. I definitely hear differences between players, amps, speakers, etc.
Not to start a war here, but I think the stereotype has a lot to do with people being unfamiliar with the music itself. I'm not overly familiar with Classical. Those small differences to meare going to be huge to people who listen to it everyday. And vice-versa. The genres place different demands on a system.
Rock/metal may not need great frequency extremes or dynamics, but it needs better pace, rythym, and timing (PRaT) than most other genres. When a system is too slow, it shows it far sooner with rock/metal than any other genre IMO.
IMO, if a system can pull of PRaT, a near flat frequency response, and be clean sounding, it'll do a great job with rock/metal. The rest of the stuff will take care of itself. Again, just my opinion. |
Bronze Member Username: Darrenmc
Winnipeg,
Manitoba
Canada
Post Number: 52
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 07:39 pm: |
|
Well I think I've narrowed my choices down to the Simaudio Moon CD-1, Arcam CD192, and the Cambridge Audio Azur 840C. I'm leaning towards the Simaudio because I can have it for a 14 day trail and return it if I don't like it. It also has a 10 year warranty on on parts & labour. |
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 12175
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 07:46 pm: |
|
.
"Rock/metal may not need great frequency extremes or dynamics, but it needs better pace, rythym, and timing (PRaT) than most other genres. When a system is too slow, it shows it far sooner with rock/metal than any other genre IMO."
This just simply ignores the fact that pace, rhythm and timing are the basic building blocks of music. All music is temporal (time based) and therefore must utilize those elements to make sense. What different genres do with the temporal elements of music is to vary how they are employed and combined.
Classical compositions rely on the rhythmic patterns of the composition to be moulded in varying fashion with different pacing and timing between the sections of the composition and the sections or voices of the orchestra. Listen to the development of the basic theme in a work such as "Night on Bald Mountain". I know of no "rock" composition that places nearly the importance on rhythmic patterns as does the most simple piece performed by a string quartet (try any Mozart quartet). The same goes for pace and timing. Each element is developed as its own component of the classical composition however they are stretched and hurried to make the emotional component of the somposition. Jazz places similar demands upon the composition and the performers and in turn the audio component asked to reproduce the performance. Various styles of Blues music are equally adept at asking the performer to set up a rhythmic pattern that will be bent and manipulated by way of pacing and timing within the performance and then return to the basic rhytmic pattern of the song. For the most part, hard rock asks only rhythm to be present in huge doses. "I'll give it a 10. It has a good beat and you can dance to it." While that may be an oversimplification of the genre, it illustrates the most basic component of rock of any type. That I personally can't imagine dancing to Ted Nugent doesn't change the essential appeal of the music. To the extent that I can't envision a slow "head banger's" composition any more than I can a well timed garage band, my point is to say the finesse of PRaT as a whole is not essential to the enjoyment of hard rock or metal.
And flat frequency response is seldom the priority for someone choosing a "rock" phono cartridge or amplifier or, for that matter, a speaker over something with a frequency response that stays closer to neutral. (A Klipsch vs. a Harbeth.) So, my experience tells me that what people say they want and what people buy are two different issues.
None of this is meant to disparage the listener who reaches for hard rock rather than Charles Mingus but just to suggest that rock music of any type favors one aspect of the PRat triumvirate at the expense of the other two associated components and flat frequency response is often relegated to minor importance (ask JBL how many classical orchestras tour with their equipment).
However, my post is not about the PRaT or frequency response of the music itself. I said, "My intention was to suggest the fine differences between the players you're considering will be obscured in many ways by a library containing nothing more than hard rock and heavy metal. Not, as some may think, because I am not a fan of those genres but due to the typical manner in which those genres are recorded and produced."
I have no real experience with any hard rock recordings that are not heavily processed in the recording and post production engineering. Some of what I would consider "classic" rock recordings have no basis what so ever in reality since they are wholly studio constructions. Hard rock is compressed down to a few decibels of dynamic range. Frequency response is not broadly extended to much beyond the 41Hz limit of an electric bass and most of that is folded upward to get more volume on the disc. Amount of bass replaces extension of bass. Most rock recordings are not done as one continuous performance with all players present in the same venue. They are pieced together from isolation booth instrumentation and direct feed into the mixing board of most electrified instruments. The drummer, who establishes the PRaT of any rock band is removed to another room and the drumset is closed mic'd with as many as sixteen microphones on the various pieces of the set. As with the overall recording, these multiple sound sources bleed into each microphone and begin to eat away at the PRat that SP listens for. In many cases today, groups are not recorded together at all but are spread across the world and pieces are assembled afterwards with no performers present during the final mix down. Mixing boards with as many as 128 channels (even up to 164 channels now) are common in studios that process rock. Overdubs and punch ins are common in the most basic recording and gain riding is the only way dynamics might be restored while damaging the overall quality of the recording.
Flangers, compressors, gates and other studio processors are employed with no true sense of what sounds "real" only what gets the job done and the disc sold. In most studios that record rock, attention to absolute phase is destroyed both in the recording and in the post production processing by passing the signal through multiple pieces of electronics. When absolute phase goes, so goes PRaT.
I'm not picking on hard rock as a genre, merely pointing out why I feel many of the "better" and more subtle qualities of a superior player will be obscured by the music itself. Distinguishing between players - unless you listen primarily for frequency response (the "brightness" of the Rotel [Gibbons] vs. the neutrality of the Rega [Taylor]) - will be more difficult with hard rock as the demonstration material than with many other styles of music, IMO. That is my point.
. |
Bronze Member Username: Darrenmc
Winnipeg,
Manitoba
Canada
Post Number: 53
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 10:45 pm: |
|
Jan thanks for the interesting post. I am no expert when it comes to stereo equipment so I come here and to other forums to seek advice. I know rock or heavy metal recordings are not the best material to take when auditioning different sources, but I always bring an acoustic cd, a cd with female vocals(usually Sarah McLachlan's Surfacing), a cd of more modern rock, and I have a Metallica CD when they played with the San Franciso Symphony, so a diverse bunch of recordings. Do you have any suggestions on CD players that would tend to lend it's characteristics towards rock/heavy metal? |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 9712
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Hard Rock(rush) and ingenue(Tragically Hip) offer their own challenges to a system. I don't do heavy metal(just AC/DC and VH) and I find the difference to be quite outspoken. The edges of Rush(Tom Sawyer for examle) are so often muted and wimped out, that some players cannot get it done.
The Rotel gets it done on a budget.
The Apollo does it too, until you hear the same track A/B with a better player for the genre.
Like the Rotel. |
Gold Member Username: Mike3
Wylie,
Tx
USA
Post Number: 1063
Registered: May-06
|
| Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 11:17 pm: |
|
That's more than I knew FWIW. I was aware of the studio recordings, musicians not being together and such. I know that live rock recordings are over engineered as well.
Unfortunately this presents as Rock being the least purest forms of recorded music, without consideration to any Rap, Disco, or re-mixes. I was of the opinion that there were varying levels or "purity" with Rock recordings. I think Sting for example, is extremely involved in accurate reproductions, Peter Gabriel is another example.
I suppose the way Jan's post comes across is that you will not be buying any recorded Rock music at Whole Foods but most likely will find it at GNC.
Is this method of recording / reproduction not practiced by any other genre?
I am not attempting to be defensive in any way but there is a lot of Rock which I find very musical. As much as I can really enjoy Patricia Barber, B.B. King, the New Orleans Preservation Hall Jazz Band, etc, how much different is a B.B. King recording from a Bob Dylan recording?
I know I am probably missing something, but I enjoy Rock for what it is as I enjoy other genres as well. Fortunately my system delivers it to me.
DMc, the Saturn handles Rock well. |
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 12176
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 12:48 am: |
|
.
Sorry, I don't know of a player that would compliment rock. My attitude has long been to buy what I consider to be the most neutral component and let it show me what's on the disc. IMO, trying to buy a "Rock-whatever" suggests you are intentionally coloring the sound in an unpredictable manner. If such a player is your final choice, that's your decision, but I would still opt for the CA in this case since I get the impresion it is the most neutral of the bunch. Like I said, I have not heard this player, my impressions are merely from what I read. You may disagree after you've had an audition.
"The edges of Rush(Tom Sawyer for examle) are so often muted and wimped out, that some players cannot get it done."
I don't have a clue what that means.
"I am not attempting to be defensive in any way but there is a lot of Rock which I find very musical. As much as I can really enjoy Patricia Barber, B.B. King, the New Orleans Preservation Hall Jazz Band, etc, how much different is a B.B. King recording from a Bob Dylan recording?"
There are rock recordings that I find enjoyable. But I can't say I have a "hard rock" selection in my library. Again, I consider Nugent to be "hard rock". Nugent is a far cry from Dylan or B.B. King and I suspect a Nugent recording is approached in a different fashion than a B.B. King recording. I don't consider Clapton to be "hard rock", nor Pink Floyd. I suspect Rush would qualify but I don't listen to Rush. I can't remember if I have a VanHalen disc so I guess I probably don't. Lou Reed ain't h.r. either but it sure isn't Dylan or Angel Witch.
"Unfortunately this presents as Rock being the least purest forms of recorded music, without consideration to any Rap, Disco, or re-mixes."
No consideration was given to those genres in the original post so I didn't mention them in the list of less-likely-to-improve-your-system candidates. I suspect I'd give the same advice to someone who asked for product recommendations if they said they listened predominantly to "Dr. Death" by Jermiside.
My evaluation certainly does not present hard rock as the least pure form of recorded music. I can condemn multiple genres as crap if you'd like as long as we're discussing recording quality. We happened to be discussing hard rock and metal. How much worse is most HipHop? I leave that to you to decide.
I really don't care what type of music you like. I'm not condemning any type of music. I am saying hard rock and metal recordings do not show off the finese and capabilites of a high end CD player as easily as some other genres. Finese and metal are not common companions. I think limiting your music selections to hard rock/metal wouldn't allow you to fully differentiate the smaller details of how one player differs from another. I never said you couldn't hear differences between players, I merely said the players would be less distinguishable with metal as the recording of choice. Apparently, Daren is smart enough to figure that out.
While h.r. is not exclusive to direct feeds to the mixing board, how much "air" can be had from an electric bass plugged directly into a mixer compared to Ray Brown on upright bass with a mic 8" or 8' away from the sound holes. Name your rock drummer and I would tell you they do not display the test of timing that jazz drummer Paul Motian can perform. If Shostakovich requires twenty seven minutes to complete the first movement of his Seventh Symphony, I can't imagine a rock composer having more control over the basic rhythm of the composition. IMO, no one tests the PRaT of a system like Duke Ellington or Count Basie. Patti Smith is incapable of the nuance of Alberta Hunter. So far, no one quite has the capacity to scare me like John Lee Hooker and Johnny Cash. No one catches my heart quite like Copland and Gershwin.
None of that matters if you don't listen to those performers and composers. In any genre there are performers and composers who will be listened to sixty years from now. Personally, I am not expecting Rush to be one of those groups. I expect metal, surf guitar and DooWop to be footnotes in musical history. If you like them - great! That's not my point. My point is most h.r./metal recordings have suffered from the downgrading of high quality production values. You can listen for whatever you prefer on MegaDeath but the recording quality is easily surpassed in other genres.
That is my point and you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise.
I don't care if you like the music but for the most part I'll remain unconvinced that Etta James doesn't have more to show me about my system than Motorhead does. You will have a terribly hard time convincing me that good mono isn't better than bad 168 channels. I will take a recording with all the performers playing together over one where no one saw the other people listed on the liner notes. I prefer dynamics to compression. If you ask me judge a system's quality, I simply can't do it with metal.
. |
Silver Member Username: Kevincorr
Fairbanks,
Alaska
Usa
Post Number: 378
Registered: Jul-07
|
| Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Interesting stuff. Nothing much to add but to say I am still learning from yous guys.
Jan started me on the idea of synergy last yr. Because I cannot listen and audition gear here in the boonies I am sticking with brands to accomplish that. My living room is now replaced with all Rotel and my vinyl listening room with Rega except still looking for an Apollo. I missed one on ebay by 15 seconds. Those guys with yrs of experience know how to come in at the last second. I missed a Tivoli radio by 5 seconds!
There is an Apollo on ebay now for $550 with 12 hrs to go. Surely some pro will drop in at the last 10 seconds and get it.
I have only read the last 4 issues of the Absolute Sound Magazine(ASM). On the subject of CD players, they say that it makes less difference than the other components. But then they review individual players as though they are quite different. A hifi store who sells both Rega and Cambridge still prefers the Apollo over the Cambridge, including the 840C which ASM is absolutely bonkers over. So synergy may make the difference but ASM is suggesting that speakers and amps for example would make a much bigger change in sound than the difference between these 2 cdp. That is, once you get into good ones. |
Gold Member Username: Frank_abela
Berkshire
UK
Post Number: 2662
Registered: Sep-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 02:19 pm: |
|
Just found this thread.
Jan, Hard rock (Led Zep, The Who, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Hendrix) comprises a great deal of our testing at the shop. In fact, it is the prime arbiter of our testing. This is because it's a) what the guys know and b) very difficult for a CD player to make sense out of the thrash in that genre of music. Being able to do so while maintaining the energy and drive is one of the key elements of a CD player and most fail miserably on this sort of music. It's only when you get to the good stuff ($1500 and above) that the music really begins to make sense.
So there you go - rock is a perfectly acceptable form of music to use with high end CD players as far as I'm concerned. And even more fun is trying out all the various reissues with their variously better/worse attempts at remastering (Led Zep's Mothership has been mastered very loud and is awful since there's just no bandwidth).
Darr3en, I don't see mention of the Creek Evolution (or Destiny) since your first post. Take another look. I've heard too many good things about Creek's latest models to ignore it - especially since it's in your area. Simaudio's Ckit is also very highly rated. Good kit.
Regards,
Frank. |
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 12191
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 03:26 pm: |
|
.
"So there you go - rock is a perfectly acceptable form of music to use with high end CD players as far as I'm concerned."
There you go, putting words into my opinion that I didn't place there.
. |
Gold Member Username: Mike3
Wylie,
Tx
USA
Post Number: 1081
Registered: May-06
|
| Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 11:57 pm: |
|
Frank,
I agree to a point, the guitar on Led Zeppelin's 'When the Levee Breaks" eat up most gear, my Saturn can handle it quite well, however not as elegantly and precise as my Linn.
Another vote for vinyl.
While I am here, I think hard rock and metal differ to with I thing that is where Jan was. I suspect that you are arguing the same point as Jan but it might not be obvious to everyone. |
Bronze Member Username: Luxendel
Gondelsheim,
Baden-Württe...
Germany
Post Number: 58
Registered: Oct-07
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 07:53 am: |
|
"It's only when you get to the good stuff ($1500 and above) that the music really begins to make sense."
Very interesting thread....
Thanks!
I would love to hear experts like Jan explain this "making sense"-issue...
What does it mean for the regular guy like me...? |
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 12196
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 01:04 pm: |
|
.
TL - I didn't make the statement so I can't explain what someone else posts. If Frank wants to explain what he meant and I feel it deserves a rebuttal, then I'll contribute; but that's all I can do with "making sense".
I've explained why I feel hard rock and metal offer intangibles which render the finer aspects of a single component's or an entire system's performance inconsequential. To that I can only add that "better" components have less to say about hard rock and metal than many other musical genres. Not all, but many. If I buy a high quality system in order to better understand and enjoy music, then the system must be able to inform me about the composition/performer/performance as much as the recording must inform me about the success and failure of my system. A good recording "sounds" better than a bad recording. I feel hr and metal fail at the latter of those two tasks.
I believe I've been misunderstood to say hr and metal are the only genres that suffer from the many sins of poor recording techniques. I never said that. I think Frank infers I claimed only knowing hr and metal disallows the purchase of a high quality system. I never said that.
What I feel I have said is hr and metal as your only "reference" allows you to make it up as you go along. Personally, I find that to be a less than ideal way to compile a first rate system with intent. Without personal references based upon listening to real instruments and performers playing together, you have nowhere to aim when choosing among a group of equally talented components other than to dismiss the music and focus on the component itself. "Do I hear more depth? Do I hear more small detail? Do I hear blacker blacks?" My experience is that way leads to more frustration than long term satisfaction. There will always be another component that someone claims is better at its "component-ness" than what you already own. IMO, buying the system that is the most transparent to the task and focussing on the music's reproduction as compared to a live performance brings the most long term satisfaction. If the music is satisfying, the system's performance must follow along. This might sound a bit too "Flat Earth" to some listeners but I feel I have proven this to be true to my satisfaction many times over the years. I'm not out to select anyone as an example, but I would say the large number of upgraded components purchased by the very forum members who insist I am wrong is all the proof I require to suggest I am not.
There can be no temporal reference for how a non-existent "instrument" such as an electronic drum track actually sounds or how the "performance" displays PRaT when there is no sensitivity to the performance of the other players. There can be no timbral reference to how an amplified instrument sounds when it is deprived of its amplification by being routed directly to the mixing board. I have said that 16 microphones on a single drumset, removed from the arena of play by an isolation booth, does not lend itself to phase coherence or temporal integrity and then passing those 16 channels of information through the conventional processing devices employed in most modern studios recording hr and metal further destroys the integrity and coherence of the original performance. If all that qualifies as the "thrash" to which Frank refers, then I agree it exists. What it means to make sense of it, is something I cannot explain. And if "making sense of thrash" is your only requirement when choosing a component, then you have missed much of what a better component should accomplish. That has been my point all along. For every recording one component gets right, there will be others it gets wrong simply because there is no consistency when there are no references. It's like baking a souffle without the advantage of measuring devices and a thermostat on the oven. You'll very likely throw out quite a few egss to get anything edible.
Frank seems to suggest that the fact most of his demos revolve around rock therefore makes rock a satisfactory demonstration material. "So there you go - rock is a perfectly acceptable form of music to use with high end CD players as far as I'm concerned." I'm not looking to argue with Frank as I know what material gets used in demos and that most listeners use their car stereo as a "reference" for how a system should "sound". I just tend to disagree with the idea that hr and metal have that much to offer the listener seeking a high quaity component system that is capable of reproducing music to its fullest expression. hr and metal are in this case the fast food of the musical genre world (not to ignore other genres of low nutrional value). And knowing hr and metal as your only reference is like never having a meal where you sit down.
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/687awsi/
. |
Bronze Member Username: Luxendel
Gondelsheim,
Baden-Württe...
Germany
Post Number: 61
Registered: Oct-07
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 03:19 pm: |
|
Oh, but I would have appreciated your opinion, Jan.
Sorry, didnt want to bother you. |
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne
Dallas,
TX
Post Number: 12197
Registered: May-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 04:14 pm: |
|
.
TL - I'll be glad to give an opinion once I know what Frank meant. |
Bronze Member Username: Luxendel
Gondelsheim,
Baden-Württe...
Germany
Post Number: 62
Registered: Oct-07
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 04:20 pm: |
|
Yo, maybe he could explain a bit..... |
Bronze Member Username: James_lehmann
Post Number: 21
Registered: Nov-06
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 04:47 pm: |
|
>> In most studios that record rock, attention to absolute phase is destroyed both in the recording and in the post production processing by passing the signal through multiple pieces of electronics. When absolute phase goes, so goes PRaT.
A very interesting and perceptive post Jan.
I am a recording engineer and you're absolutely right about this. There ARE some fantastic rock engineers who will bother to align the phase of absolutely everything as precisely as a discrete recording process will allow. But many don't and some wonderful rock albums are produced nonetheless - as you correctly identify there are usually other much more important considerations for a rock album - punch, aggression, drive, loudness etc etc.
All of this mean that no multitracked recording of any description will ever possess the 'sonic purity' of a Steinway recorded with a fastidiously aligned matched pair of Schoeps microphones in the Concertgebouw. (I hope I don't need to state here that I'm not passing judgement on the relative artistic merit of each - I'm talking strictly about pure acoustics, as I think Jan is too.)
And this is where the two extreme schools of audio enthusiast diverge...
Group 1 will employ the latter type of recording to test equipment for ultimate proximity to 'what was really there' - this is the only criteria by which they will judge their purchases.
Group 2 accept that most modern recordings have been through far too many electronic processes to remotely resemble 'what was there' - many are not even recorded with this as a goal - and are simply on a quest to purchase a system that sounds good and right to their ears.
Then there's the rest of us who probably seek some sort of balance between the two, in that it's so extremely difficult to A/B a recording with reality, we rely to an extent on memory of a certain sound or feeling of a live concert to judge the success of a piece of gear in reproducing it. At the same time we love to simply throw on some Floyd, crank it up, and wallow in the soundscape of DSOTM, which has absolutely no reference to anything 'real' but still needs to convey a certain set of feelings to us as we listen.
And I think gear manufacturers realise that too - many people's tastes are highly eclectic these days, so they simply have to build gear that can satisfy the market. It's going to be a rare bird who will buy different players for each genre of music they listen to, although I've no doubt on this Forum there may be some!
I know I take along a hugely varied selection of music to audition equipment on in the hope that I can find something that does indeed exhibit this kind of balance I'm talking about. I think the idea of buying equipment that 'resolves' or 'makes sense of' ALL the music you want to listen to is a useful one - a decent player should surely be able to do this whatever genre you listen to. And of course each person's aural concept of what 'makes sense' will vary widely too, which is what makes this game so endless and such fun!
It's late, I'm waffling, don't mind me! I was trying to say something but... |
Gold Member Username: Nuck
Post Number: 9723
Registered: Dec-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 08:58 pm: |
|
JL, sure, i want it all and I want it now, just like everybody else.
The fact being that the only bst solution at the moment is flac files and a DAC, which I enjoyed very much.
The future is now. |
Gold Member Username: Mike3
Wylie,
Tx
USA
Post Number: 1086
Registered: May-06
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 09:03 pm: |
|
I think if I had Jan's kit in my family room and my kit upstairs I would be pretty fat. I completely agree with JL that one needs more than one system to get the most out of a variety of recorded music. I suspect we all endeavor to build a kit which suits our tastes best, but there really is no one size fits all. FWIW. |
Bronze Member Username: Darrenmc
Winnipeg,
Manitoba
Canada
Post Number: 54
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 11:04 pm: |
|
Does anyone know anything about C.E.C. CD players? I can get a pretty good price on one. From what I've read it's a quality product. It's this particular player: http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/cdplayer/tl51xr/tl51xr_e.html |
Gold Member Username: Frank_abela
Berkshire
UK
Post Number: 2678
Registered: Sep-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 11:50 am: |
|
Jan,
First let me apologise if my post came across as combative - it was not meant to be so.
2nd, and very importantly, what I actually said was "comprises a great deal of our testing at the shop". I specifically did not say demo because there are many variables in that scenario as you so rightly point out. What I meant was the personal testing of the shop staff both at home on our own systems and also in the shop. In this testing we use most genres but rock and blues form the core of the genres, in part because the others in the shop don't have a big interest in classical.
So this 'makes sense' business. Well, it makes it easier to explain my view from the opposite position. Most of the time, with a lot of HiFi - and particularly with high energy music like rock - the combination of the high energy and rive often causes the music to sound confused, as if the various band members are playing in their own space without much relation to the the other band members. With simpler, lower energy music, including much modern day well recorded solo piano, the relationship between the notes being played is more flexible and easily makes sense. As the piece becomes more ccomplex or dense, such as a piano concerto one perceives a that there is discord between the players and the piece doesn't hang together - or make sense. This is not the same as compression which often also happens in this situation. The thing is many people don't or can't separate compression from confusion until they've heard the difference. Rock recordings are really a great benchmark for this in particular because they're usually dense recordings of variable quality, so the compression is relatively constant and the question becomes one of 'making sense' irrespective of the liomitations of the recording.
Regards,
Frank. |
Silver Member Username: Kevincorr
Fairbanks,
Alaska
Usa
Post Number: 383
Registered: Jul-07
| |
