Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
|
Post by Bigman80 on Aug 5, 2018 5:36:51 GMT
View AttachmentJolida JD 100 most analogue sounding affordable player I have heard. I hadn’t taken any notice of Jolida until Oliver (Bigman 80) bought one of their phono stages and I read up on them. Never saw the CD player though. Analogue sounding is a must for me. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 5, 2018 6:41:47 GMT
Never understood this 'analogue sounding' thing. I've never heard a cd player that sounds like a turntable. What's an example of a cd player that is not analogue sounding?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 7:45:27 GMT
I can understand the analogue thing macca, folks asking for cdps to sound like a TT......but folk never seem to ask for analogue players to sound digital.
Maybe it's simply a case of A sounding superior to D.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 5, 2018 8:12:44 GMT
I've heard a recording of a vinyl lp on cdr and that sounded like a turntable. Also heard tapes of LP recorded on an LP12 and played back on a Nakamichi Dragon and they sounded like a turntable, too.
Analogue to digital conversion is transparent. If you are listening to an old analogue recording, a Doors album, lets say, what you are really listening to in terms of the 'character' are the sonic traits of the reel to reel machine that they used to digitise the master tape to make the CD. So not only are you effectively listening to an analogue tape machine when playing the CD it is actually a machine that is technically better at doing analogue than a turntable.
There are some cd players and DACs that put a bit of a 'fuzzy' edge on everything, Regas for example. Is this what we are talking about? I don't like that myself. Spoils the benefits of digital and adds none of the euphony of vinyl. I suppose it may soften things up a bit and make digital more listenable on a sub-optimal system, but the solution to that is to upgrade the system, not put a blanket over the sound of the source.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Aug 5, 2018 8:46:04 GMT
There are some cd players and DACs that put a bit of a 'fuzzy' edge on everything, Regas for example. Is this what we are talking about? I don't like that myself. Spoils the benefits of digital and adds none of the euphony of vinyl. I suppose it may soften things up a bit and make digital more listenable on a sub-optimal system, but the solution to that is to upgrade the system, not put a blanket over the sound of the source. This ^^^^ |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Aug 5, 2018 11:48:50 GMT
Which Rega CD players macca? The cheap one* needs a 50k+ input impedance to work properly (ever since the first Planet model) and the Saturn R and Isis-valve players were never like this although the latter may be 'glowed up' a little more than truth dictates.
Into a half decent amp with optimum loading, the Apollo R sounds fine, just not as 'big' as the more expensive models in their range, or even their dac...
Old Marantz popular models went from dull and bloated to hard and fatiguing (the CD63KI model was awfully scrappy and harsh and the CD52SE bloated the fat in a wide open system, but the very first CD63 wasn't either of these and sounded nice in a 'safe' kind of way!). meridian used to totally change the sonics of some of their players in the course of the model's life I remember (the 506 was a notable one)... Things really have moved on now and it seems old mid-line Denon's seem to have it just right for 90% of the time and are pretty damned close the other 10% imo... (I remember the 1015 being a good general purpose £320 worth and it's stood the test of time really well imo unlike some of its 5* review peers which sound contrived and coloured if they're still working)
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
|
Post by Bigman80 on Aug 5, 2018 12:28:42 GMT
Never understood this 'analogue sounding' thing. I've never heard a cd player that sounds like a turntable. What's an example of a cd player that is not analogue sounding? IMO a Marantz CD52 mk2 would be the least analogue sounding player. Digital glare and cardboard flat bass gone mad. Marantz CD85 would be another. Most other things spwith a Marantz badge and especially a KI signature would likely fit the bill too. Naim CDI is probably the most analogue player I have used. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Aug 5, 2018 13:23:38 GMT
I remember the CDI fondly, but it's nearly a thirty year old player now and I honestly believe this tech and sonic 'goodness' has shot down in price today. I still keep the Micro Seiki for its battleship build and weight, but it's no longer as 'special' as I remember it being at the time (it trounced a CDS I remember as we had them both at the same time and this into a Naim system too!!!) The player I ended up buying was this particular original Ab Sounds demonstrator (certain marks on the solid rosewood trim) and the only mod it had was a Trichord Clock 2, which made for a subtle difference about the same as an added Sicomin support, which it also has  ...
(I'd like the big JBL's behind it as well )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 13:42:05 GMT
My main CD player is a Meridian 808.2 with which I am very pleased but for SACD discs I use a Marantz SA11,I do not know about other marantz players but I have not had any problems or issues with this one.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
|
Post by Bigman80 on Aug 5, 2018 14:08:35 GMT
I remember the CDI fondly, but it's nearly a thirty year old player now and I honestly believe this tech and sonic 'goodness' has shot down in price today. I still keep the Micro Seiki for its battleship build and weight, but it's no longer as 'special' as I remember it being at the time (it trounced a CDS I remember as we had them both at the same time and this into a Naim system too!!!) The player I ended up buying was this particular original Ab Sounds demonstrator (certain marks on the solid rosewood trim) and the only mod it had was a Trichord Clock 2, which made for a subtle difference about the same as an added Sicomin support, which it also has ... (I'd like the big JBL's behind it as well ) I have to agree. As much as I love the CDI and value the way it makes music, there are more sonically capable payers out there that make music almost as well. |
|
|
|
Post by pauld on Aug 5, 2018 19:40:55 GMT
The CDI is a good player, but can certainly be bettered with more modern players.
The Rega Isis has always surprised me, especially for its value. It trounces the Naim CDS3 which in its own right is a good and well regarded player.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauld on Aug 6, 2018 9:35:13 GMT
The CDI is a good player, but can certainly be bettered with more modern players. The Rega Isis has always surprised me, especially for its value. It trounces the Naim CDS3 which in its own right is a good and well regarded player. I replaced my CDI with a CDX2 which was clearly superior, but I am not sure quite as musical overall. Then I replaced the CDX2 with the CXC Transport and Beresford DAC I now have which retails for around 8 times less than the CDX2 and is far superior in every way, including musicality. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Aug 6, 2018 9:53:48 GMT
This is the thing. Digital tech has improved and become far cheaper. I suspect Stan has his dacs made in the far east for a few tens of pounds (nothing wrong at all with that and he seemed to have a good thing going with his makers) where Naim would involve higher manufacturing costs as well as significantly higher profit percentage aspects of their business (they stuff their own boards still don't they?).
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 6, 2018 10:54:02 GMT
You say digital tech has improved but what is that statement based on? Are you aware that some modern DACS measure worse than the 1st gen CD players from 1983?
How can a CD player be 'clearly superior' to a predecessor and at the same time be 'not as musical'.
Why do I get the impression that for most audiophiles digital audio is just a big, inexplicable wonderland where anything is possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by nonuffin on Aug 6, 2018 11:30:39 GMT
Why do I get the impression that for most audiophiles digital audio is just a big, inexplicable wonderland where anything is possible? It's a big wonderland where audiophiles can squabble endlessly about how much "better" multibit rates are, oversampling or not has benefits and which chipset produces the best sound. To me it is how well the analogue output stage is nailed together that determines which of those above digital formats behave. |
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Aug 6, 2018 13:25:43 GMT
How can a CD player be 'clearly superior' to a predecessor and at the same time be 'not as musical'. When music is not the criteria being judged? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 14:07:21 GMT
What criteria are you judging ?
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Aug 6, 2018 14:51:49 GMT
Sorry to butt in, but it's not that easy to categorise and pidgeonholing 'music' and 'objective sonic aspects' as totally separate doesn't sit well with me I'm afraid...
I agree that it's one thing to hear 'all the details' clearly, but if these details can be presented with musical aspects too (timbre, pitch, ease of following any melodic content and reproduction of any reverb recorded, real or artificial), then without the musicians there in front of you, it can be a joyous experience listening at home.
Way back when I worked in London, Maazel was conducting a Mahler cycle and imo he ruined almost every performance, the result not being musical and certainly not involving to me, despite sitting in the usual seats at the Festival Hall. A short while later, Claudio Abbado was conducting Mahler 6 in the same venue and for me, this was an epiphany moment. The symphony became timeless, the way the music was played was superbly sensitive and I came out of the venue deeply moved and full of respect and, well, love for what I'd just heard. At home, you can't do this as easily, so a purely forensic and clinical presentation may not stir the emotions as well.
I've said before I loved the old active big ATC's I once owned. I get the impression the current issue version would be too 'HiFi' for me now, but as a working tool to listen for recording faults, it's probably superb. On the other hand, the typical far eastern Harbeth based system is gentle, bland almost (very few owners take the manufacturer's advice for powerful amps to wake them up) and owners wax lyrical about the silky smooth sound they're getting - in other words like a modern day radiogram to me!!!!!
I'm effin' rambling again. i can well believe one CD player communicating the musical essence but maybe not being the 'clearest' where it's replacement is sharply etched and 'deeeeetailed' but offering less musical enjoyment. Naim did this with the NAP 250, the first one (bolt up) being almost valve like in its purity and tuneful delivery and I vividly remember our shock at hearing the CB 250 when it first came in - it was HORRIBLE! But of course we got used to it and here the brainwashing started...
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 6, 2018 15:33:13 GMT
Let's not confuse the issue by referring to live performances.
A recording isn't a live performance even if it is a recording of a live performance. This is why you should never make live performance the reference for how your system sounds/should sound.
If you need a reference then the sound of a particular recording on a system that you like is the best option.
I think people get too hung up on this idea of 'musicality'. It's far too nebulous a term to mean anything to anyone yet it seems to be the new Holy Grail and everything is subservient to it. System is so good you can hear the reverb off the walls of the vocal booth? Forget it mate, no-one cares about that, if it isn't 'musical' then you're nowhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 18:23:57 GMT
Let's not confuse the issue by referring to live performances. A recording isn't a live performance even if it is a recording of a live performance. This is why you should never make live performance the reference for how your system sounds/should sound. If you need a reference then the sound of a particular recording on a system that you like is the best option. I think people get too hung up on this idea of 'musicality'. It's far too nebulous a term to mean anything to anyone yet it seems to be the new Holy Grail and everything is subservient to it. System is so good you can hear the reverb off the walls of the vocal booth? Forget it mate, no-one cares about that, if it isn't 'musical' then you're nowhere. Totally agree. Not what I’m seeking anyway. Also there is a lot going on emotionally Andy visually as well as picking up emotions and vibe from the occasion and other listeners. Nobody just listens to live performances, they experience them on a wider level. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Aug 6, 2018 18:37:38 GMT
Let's not confuse the issue by referring to live performances. A recording isn't a live performance even if it is a recording of a live performance. This is why you should never make live performance the reference for how your system sounds/should sound. If you need a reference then the sound of a particular recording on a system that you like is the best option. I think people get too hung up on this idea of 'musicality'. It's far too nebulous a term to mean anything to anyone yet it seems to be the new Holy Grail and everything is subservient to it. System is so good you can hear the reverb off the walls of the vocal booth? Forget it mate, no-one cares about that, if it isn't 'musical' then you're nowhere. I used master tapes as my reference and for me, most CD players come closer to that ideal than almost any vinyl. i don't have the stuff any more, but it stands me in good stead still...
Now, this 'musicality' thing... In my case, I loved to sing and learned the lyrics to favourite songs and hts of the day fairly easily. So many Beatles lyrics come so easily tumbling out it makes my son embarrassed when a track is played and off I go (wife too, but she's more discrete than me). When I went to Linn for the first time in 1981, we sat down to listen to some music and the first thing we did was to compare a Rega 3/R200 with a Linn/ittok. I can't remember the cartridge but it could have been a Grace F9E. One of the differences we heard was a 'HiFi clarity' one, where the Rega tended to make piano notes run together in comparison. The other was more difficult to quantify, but entailed listening to the melody lines of lead instruments first - how easy is it to follow what they're playing. Listen back a few layers, can you hear what other instruments are playing and more importantly what it is they're playing? Back then, the LP12 was good at allowing that, but I since heard far better for less money and that's one reason why I keep going on about bloody Spacedecks and so on...
The Micro Seiki I still use in the main setup (run from its transformer coupled outputs) was the first player I ever heard 'do' depth perspectives. Other players just couldn't and this was important to me. Using Apogee Duetta Signatures, a Krell KSA 80 and ARC SP9 and playing a Laurie Anderson CD back in 1989, the spatial aspect was palpable and something I'd never heard before from compact disc.....
Today, I did a silly comparison of CD players. In the workroom, I've currently got my gifted Denon DCD 1015 as transport into the ton-up twin supplied QED Digit opto and NVA TIS cables and I think it sounds fab. Easy to delve into a mix, even an old analogue one, and follow who's there and what they're playing. First I compared the fixed analogue outs on the player (SSC cable) to the QED and the difference wasn't small and mostly confined to the 'musical' aspects. The silly old trck I used was 'Frankenstein' by The Edgar Winter Group (the track 'Fluff' Freeman nicked bits from for musical 'stabs' in his show. the source was I think an MP3, I'm not sure,but it was burned to a CD-R. The Denon on its own sounded like a distorted multi-generation analogue copy, with a tuneless bass distortion and backing instruments more of a cacophony. i could tell there were guitar harmonies with the sax and so on, plus some background synth sounds, but it was damned difficult to follow - just the kind of criticism many have against MP3's. I switched to a Sony CDP-S1 that RD has lent me (he's using something else as transport I'm not currently allowed to mention) and from the analogue outputs the improvement was easy to hear, especially in the bass, which became less distortion-based and started to become more 'tuneful' - I could better hear what the bassist was playing and how the kick drum integrated with the rest of the kit - there seemed a little bit of reverb added to the drum kit now while the music was playing.
The Sony didn't like the fussy QED digital input (maybe it's faulty but some players won't work with it at all) so I dug out the dac-for-a-fiver and connected it up. For a minute or so a cacophony of noise again but then it began to open out and separate things out (SSC cables again). The sax was actually playing something and it was different to the backing guitar but harmonising with it (I forget the musical term). The drum kit had definite individual skins and of course the good old Moog was snarling away in the background as well as coming forward on occasion. I was able to more easily dip into this ancient analogue track, bypassing the distortion on the way and really follow the individual musical lines that made up the whole of this classic rock track, together with a number of edits too which I won't go into...
Got to go, but hope this helps describe what I identify as 'musical.'
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Aug 6, 2018 18:55:51 GMT
So musical for you is just being able to follow all the individual tracks in the mix? I thought that was called 'separation'?
Or do you also mean the way that the mix has been put together, or if live, the musicians interaction? I agree you need separation to appreciate that.
Some CD players do put out a very flat 2D soundstage I agree. If I compare my Sony 791E to my 505ES you can immediately see why the ES cost £2500 more. But you can still follow the individual strands of the mix on the 791E and get the vibe of the musicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Aug 6, 2018 19:31:53 GMT
To follow the melody lines and how-if they harmonise with each other, for want of a better term, not just being able to hear there's detail there. Separation is a part of that yes, but it's nothing if you can't actually follow more easily what each part is playing... I just find the most' musically involving' gear allows that with less concentration.
I'm sorry I can't describe this any better. Some old fashioned valve amps give musical notes, but it's accompanied by a kind of sludge which prevents hearing into the mix (Quad 11/22 as a pair), or it softens cymbals too much (Quad II, some Audio Innovations and E.A.R. kit). The drummer Alan Ganley who accompanied Carol Kidd in her Linn days, could play tunes on a couple of cymbals with his brushes simply by th eway his brushes 'caressed' them - absolutely beautiful heard live. A contemporary of his, Martin Drew, was like 'Animal' from the Muppets in comparison and his brushed drum work was metronomic and supremely precise but with little apparent feeling in comparison. A third jazz/rock drummer, Jaki Liebezeit, was metronomic, but the 'groove' he generated in his precise drumming was almost without equal I feel and it just got into you...
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,398
|
Post by Bigman80 on Aug 6, 2018 20:33:54 GMT
I get you, Dave. Separation can be achieved without it being an enjoyable whole. Sometimes it even spoils the greater musical experience because it pulls the music apart,
The sort of separation/musicality you are describing allows all the strands to be heard individually, but in a way which greatly enhances the whole and makes it an experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Aug 7, 2018 9:02:51 GMT
It's when it's applied to domestic gear without the musicians on the other side of the glass when subjectivism rears it's ugly and very changeable head. Good to be challenged though, as I honestly thought the DCD 1015 was a *very* good player, when in fact it was from the era when £320 got you most but not all of it and the fiver dac plus linear supply betters it for timbres and being able to separate out and follow harmonies (gawd these words are crap all in themselves but I can't describe it better).
The Sony CDP-S1 as a stand alone player is a good one though but they tend to go as part of the full La Scala midi system which I suspect is a very respectable little set as the TEAC 500 used to be and Technics made a lovely little set with chamferred edges and wood trims in the early noughties too but I have no user-knowledge of it (the TEAC 500 CD player was an adequate Philips based player and I think this Sony may well have the comfortable edge -instinct in play here though). My current workroom 'headphone' system was easily able to pick up the musical differences though, so I'm happy...
I wish I was in a second hand shop, able to try some of the later Arcams again (7se, 8 and 8se) amongst others like the original MF X-Ray as I knew those. I suspect a clamshell Planet would still make a great transport for under £200 (needs careful siting though) and a very passable player if the amp loading suits it. Better stuff like the Coplands and so on are beyond my price level even at twenty years old, so it's fun to look at sleeping cheapies which punch above their weight...
|
|
...