CD players seem to be very disappointing

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

£170 CDP sound = £899 CDP sound.
£170 CDP skips = 0, £899 CDP skips++

Me = disappointed.

Seriously. I just bought a expensive CD player to replace a 5 year
old cheap Kenwood that was never rated highly ever. My old cheap one
skips like a fat elephant wearing lead shoes i.e. not at all. The new
expensive one skips lots of my CDs so I'm faced with buying them again
at more expense and to top it all there is very little difference in
sound. No more detail, perhaps slightly more solid bass but it is
such a small difference as I'm not sure if it exists or if I'm
imagining it to make myself feel better after spending such a lot of
money on a lemon.

I demoed three disc spinners at the shop. The model below the one I
bought sounded marginally worse. Another sounded about the same. At
another shop I demoed another three, again the expensive model sounded
slightly more detailed than its less expensive brother and the third
one sounded different but not necessarily better.

Really does anyone hear anything extra for what they pay for in a CD
player??

My amp upgrade made a big difference speakers make a big difference
but CD players just all seem to sound the same.

BTW the new CDP is an ex-demo. I don't think demoing CD players does
anything more to them than burn them in. Oh and the burn in period
isn't that just the amount of time it take for you to convince
yourself that you did not waste all your money.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Richard Allen wrote:
> £170 CDP sound = £899 CDP sound.
> £170 CDP skips = 0, £899 CDP skips++
>
> Me = disappointed.
>
> Seriously. I just bought a expensive CD player to replace a 5 year
> old cheap Kenwood that was never rated highly ever. My old cheap one
> skips like a fat elephant wearing lead shoes i.e. not at all. The
new
> expensive one skips lots of my CDs so I'm faced with buying them
again

I feel your pain, but I don't see where you have to buy new CDs just
because the new machine skips. Nor, for that matter, will buying new
CDs solve the problem; they'll skip too. The disks are fine. Swallow
your pride and get another CD player.

> at more expense and to top it all there is very little difference in
> sound. No more detail, perhaps slightly more solid bass but it is
> such a small difference as I'm not sure if it exists or if I'm
> imagining it to make myself feel better after spending such a lot of
> money on a lemon.
>
> I demoed three disc spinners at the shop. The model below the one I
> bought sounded marginally worse. Another sounded about the same. At
> another shop I demoed another three, again the expensive model
sounded
> slightly more detailed than its less expensive brother and the third
> one sounded different but not necessarily better.
>
> Really does anyone hear anything extra for what they pay for in a CD
> player??

There was a thread some time ago ("Source units affect sound?") in
which several posters argued that even truly cheap disk players may be
audibly indistinguishable from the megabuck models. One poster claimed
to have found a $9 portable that was the equivalent of a high-end
model.

> My amp upgrade made a big difference speakers make a big difference
> but CD players just all seem to sound the same.
>
> BTW the new CDP is an ex-demo. I don't think demoing CD players does
> anything more to them than burn them in. Oh and the burn in period
> isn't that just the amount of time it take for you to convince
> yourself that you did not waste all your money.

Precisely.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

CD players should all sound the same. Any differences are minor and can be
engineered into the player.
CD players should not skip, take your new one back and get one that works !
Why buy a new CD only player when a universal player gives you a more future
proof solution and a chance to play your DVDs through your Hi-Fi ?

"Richard Allen" <richard.j.allen@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:d4ejdi0247q@news4.newsguy.com...
> £170 CDP sound = £899 CDP sound.
> £170 CDP skips = 0, £899 CDP skips++
>
> Me = disappointed.
>
> Seriously. I just bought a expensive CD player to replace a 5 year
> old cheap Kenwood that was never rated highly ever. My old cheap one
> skips like a fat elephant wearing lead shoes i.e. not at all. The new
> expensive one skips lots of my CDs so I'm faced with buying them again
> at more expense and to top it all there is very little difference in
> sound. No more detail, perhaps slightly more solid bass but it is
> such a small difference as I'm not sure if it exists or if I'm
> imagining it to make myself feel better after spending such a lot of
> money on a lemon.
>
> I demoed three disc spinners at the shop. The model below the one I
> bought sounded marginally worse. Another sounded about the same. At
> another shop I demoed another three, again the expensive model sounded
> slightly more detailed than its less expensive brother and the third
> one sounded different but not necessarily better.
>
> Really does anyone hear anything extra for what they pay for in a CD
> player??
>
> My amp upgrade made a big difference speakers make a big difference
> but CD players just all seem to sound the same.
>
> BTW the new CDP is an ex-demo. I don't think demoing CD players does
> anything more to them than burn them in. Oh and the burn in period
> isn't that just the amount of time it take for you to convince
> yourself that you did not waste all your money.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d4gbr60pkd@news4.newsguy.com...

>There was a thread some time ago ("Source units affect sound?") in
>which several posters argued that even truly cheap disk players may be
>audibly indistinguishable from the megabuck models. One poster claimed
>to have found a $9 portable that was the equivalent of a high-end
>model.

That would be me. Note that I didn't say it was "equivalent", just that I
personally couldn't tell a difference in sound quality compared to a Rega
Planet (neither could the owner of the Planet.) There's a lot more to a CD
player than sound quality. The ability to track defects is probably one of
the most important, and it was the principal annoyance of the original
poster.

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<normanstr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4gbr60pkd@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> >There was a thread some time ago ("Source units affect sound?") in
> >which several posters argued that even truly cheap disk players may
be
> >audibly indistinguishable from the megabuck models. One poster
claimed
> >to have found a $9 portable that was the equivalent of a high-end
> >model.
>
> That would be me. Note that I didn't say it was "equivalent", just
that I
> personally couldn't tell a difference in sound quality compared to a
Rega
> Planet (neither could the owner of the Planet.) There's a lot more
to a CD
> player than sound quality. The ability to track defects is probably
one of
> the most important, and it was the principal annoyance of the
original
> poster.

Very true, and of course I meant "sonic equivalent." But as the OP's
experience shows, paying a lot of money doesn't necessarily buy you
better tracking.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Richard Allen <richard.j.allen@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> ?170 CDP sound = ?899 CDP sound.
> ?170 CDP skips = 0, ?899 CDP skips++

> Me = disappointed.

> Seriously. I just bought a expensive CD player to replace a 5 year
> old cheap Kenwood that was never rated highly ever. My old cheap one
> skips like a fat elephant wearing lead shoes i.e. not at all. The new
> expensive one skips lots of my CDs so I'm faced with buying them again
> at more expense and to top it all there is very little difference in
> sound. No more detail, perhaps slightly more solid bass but it is
> such a small difference as I'm not sure if it exists or if I'm
> imagining it to make myself feel better after spending such a lot of
> money on a lemon.


If your player skips a lot on your CDs, perhaps you should fix your
CDs -- CD polish or even toothpaste can do the job.

No player I have owned ever skipped except on badly damaged CDs.


> I demoed three disc spinners at the shop. The model below the one I
> bought sounded marginally worse. Another sounded about the same. At
> another shop I demoed another three, again the expensive model sounded
> slightly more detailed than its less expensive brother and the third
> one sounded different but not necessarily better.

Then again, it's also possible they all actually sounded the same...that's a
hazard in such kinds of comparisons.


> Really does anyone hear anything extra for what they pay for in a CD
> player??

Mine's a DVD player that does SACD and DVD-A as well. So yes, for
what I paid I 'hear' extra formats that a CD-only player couldn't offer.
But I wouldn't venture to
say that the sound of a CD played on this thing sounds any different
from one played on another unit.


> My amp upgrade made a big difference speakers make a big difference
> but CD players just all seem to sound the same.

You might be right.

> BTW the new CDP is an ex-demo. I don't think demoing CD players does
> anything more to them than burn them in.

There's no evidence it even does that.

> Oh and the burn in period
> isn't that just the amount of time it take for you to convince
> yourself that you did not waste all your money.

Interesting! What's your evidence for this? Oh and anecdotal
evidence isn't sufficient.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Richard Allen wrote:
> > ?170 CDP sound = ?899 CDP sound.
> > ?170 CDP skips = 0, ?899 CDP skips++
> >
> > Me = disappointed.
> >
> > Seriously. I just bought a expensive CD player to replace a 5 year
> > old cheap Kenwood that was never rated highly ever. My old cheap one
> > skips like a fat elephant wearing lead shoes i.e. not at all. The
> new
> > expensive one skips lots of my CDs so I'm faced with buying them
> again

> I feel your pain, but I don't see where you have to buy new CDs just
> because the new machine skips. Nor, for that matter, will buying new
> CDs solve the problem; they'll skip too. The disks are fine. Swallow
> your pride and get another CD player.

Well, if he treats his CDs roughly, so that they accumulate big scratches,
the CDs could be the problem.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Richard Allen wrote:
> > > ?170 CDP sound = ?899 CDP sound.
> > > ?170 CDP skips = 0, ?899 CDP skips++
> > >
> > > Me = disappointed.
> > >
> > > Seriously. I just bought a expensive CD player to replace a 5
year
> > > old cheap Kenwood that was never rated highly ever. My old cheap
one
> > > skips like a fat elephant wearing lead shoes i.e. not at all.
The
> > new
> > > expensive one skips lots of my CDs so I'm faced with buying them
> > again
>
> > I feel your pain, but I don't see where you have to buy new CDs
just
> > because the new machine skips. Nor, for that matter, will buying
new
> > CDs solve the problem; they'll skip too. The disks are fine.
Swallow
> > your pride and get another CD player.
>
> Well, if he treats his CDs roughly, so that they accumulate big
scratches,
> the CDs could be the problem.

Except that they didn't skip on his old Kenwood.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

> > Oh and the burn in period
> > isn't that just the amount of time it take for you to convince
> > yourself that you did not waste all your money.
>
> Interesting! What's your evidence for this? Oh and anecdotal
> evidence isn't sufficient.

It's just a hunch

I do treat my CDs well (I know people who dont and I don't treat my CD
anything like the way some people do) but some CDs I buy second hand
and come with free scratches already )

I would have heard differences between CD players but I would not say
one is necessarily _better_ than another but slightly different in
sound. I'm looking for more detail and better build quality out of a
CD player so I think I will look for something that is reasonably well
constructed (out of metail rather than plastic) and maybedecodes
HDCDs. I would like to try SACD and DVD-A but there doesn't seem to
be much material recorded in those formats yet so I think I will wait
for the formats to mature first.

Anyway the shop will let me reconsider the player so no harm done.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Richard Allen wrote:
> > > > ?170 CDP sound = ?899 CDP sound.
> > > > ?170 CDP skips = 0, ?899 CDP skips++
> > > >
> > > > Me = disappointed.
> > > >
> > > > Seriously. I just bought a expensive CD player to replace a 5
> year
> > > > old cheap Kenwood that was never rated highly ever. My old cheap
> one
> > > > skips like a fat elephant wearing lead shoes i.e. not at all.
> The
> > > new
> > > > expensive one skips lots of my CDs so I'm faced with buying them
> > > again
> >
> > > I feel your pain, but I don't see where you have to buy new CDs
> just
> > > because the new machine skips. Nor, for that matter, will buying
> new
> > > CDs solve the problem; they'll skip too. The disks are fine.
> Swallow
> > > your pride and get another CD player.
> >
> > Well, if he treats his CDs roughly, so that they accumulate big
> scratches,
> > the CDs could be the problem.

> Except that they didn't skip on his old Kenwood.

Which doesn't prove the CDs weren't damaged; could be that the Kenwood was
better at playing them. Not terribly likely perhaps, but worth checkign
out as a possibility, since it costs little to polish a CD.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > Richard Allen wrote:
> > > > > ?170 CDP sound = ?899 CDP sound.
> > > > > ?170 CDP skips = 0, ?899 CDP skips++
> > > > >
> > > > > Me = disappointed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously. I just bought a expensive CD player to replace a
5
> > year
> > > > > old cheap Kenwood that was never rated highly ever. My old
cheap
> > one
> > > > > skips like a fat elephant wearing lead shoes i.e. not at all.
> > The
> > > > new
> > > > > expensive one skips lots of my CDs so I'm faced with buying
them
> > > > again
> > >
> > > > I feel your pain, but I don't see where you have to buy new CDs
> > just
> > > > because the new machine skips. Nor, for that matter, will
buying
> > new
> > > > CDs solve the problem; they'll skip too. The disks are fine.
> > Swallow
> > > > your pride and get another CD player.
> > >
> > > Well, if he treats his CDs roughly, so that they accumulate big
> > scratches,
> > > the CDs could be the problem.
>
> > Except that they didn't skip on his old Kenwood.
>
> Which doesn't prove the CDs weren't damaged; could be that the
Kenwood was
> better at playing them. Not terribly likely perhaps, but worth
checkign
> out as a possibility, since it costs little to polish a CD.

But they couldn't have been too badly damaged, and it sounds like he
was talking about more than a few. In that case, it would be a mistake
to blame the disks. Decent players ought to be able to get past a few
scratches--a brand new, pricey one especially. Between fixing the CDs
and returning the deck, I think the better solution is obvious.

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d4kc7p01jal@news4.newsguy.com...
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> > > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > > > Richard Allen wrote:
>> > > > > ?170 CDP sound = ?899 CDP sound.
>> > > > > ?170 CDP skips = 0, ?899 CDP skips++
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Me = disappointed.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Seriously. I just bought a expensive CD player to replace a
> 5
>> > year
>> > > > > old cheap Kenwood that was never rated highly ever. My old
> cheap
>> > one
>> > > > > skips like a fat elephant wearing lead shoes i.e. not at all.
>> > The
>> > > > new
>> > > > > expensive one skips lots of my CDs so I'm faced with buying
> them
>> > > > again
>> > >
>> > > > I feel your pain, but I don't see where you have to buy new CDs
>> > just
>> > > > because the new machine skips. Nor, for that matter, will
> buying
>> > new
>> > > > CDs solve the problem; they'll skip too. The disks are fine.
>> > Swallow
>> > > > your pride and get another CD player.
>> > >
>> > > Well, if he treats his CDs roughly, so that they accumulate big
>> > scratches,
>> > > the CDs could be the problem.
>>
>> > Except that they didn't skip on his old Kenwood.
>>
>> Which doesn't prove the CDs weren't damaged; could be that the
> Kenwood was
>> better at playing them. Not terribly likely perhaps, but worth
> checkign
>> out as a possibility, since it costs little to polish a CD.
>
> But they couldn't have been too badly damaged, and it sounds like he
> was talking about more than a few. In that case, it would be a mistake
> to blame the disks. Decent players ought to be able to get past a few
> scratches--a brand new, pricey one especially. Between fixing the CDs
> and returning the deck, I think the better solution is obvious.

I've come up against damaged CDs that simply wouldn't play on any of my
players. On 2 occasions I solved the problem by ripping the CD to my
computer with Exact Audio Copy, a neat program that keeps trying until it
gets something playable. Sometimes it takes many minutes of trying before
it succeeds, but in these 2 cases it produced a clean rip, which I then
burned to a CDR. It may be hard to fathom, but it's possible in this
fashion to acutally improve a CD.

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<normanstr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I've come up against damaged CDs that simply wouldn't play on any of
my
> players. On 2 occasions I solved the problem by ripping the CD to my

> computer with Exact Audio Copy, a neat program that keeps trying
until it
> gets something playable. Sometimes it takes many minutes of trying
before
> it succeeds, but in these 2 cases it produced a clean rip, which I
then
> burned to a CDR. It may be hard to fathom, but it's possible in this

> fashion to acutally improve a CD.

Had the same experience last week with a CD borrowed from the library.
Periphery of the disk was so scratched up that the last four tracks
wouldn't play at all. But iTunes ripped it just fine. Why can a $1000
computer do it, and not a $1000 CD player?

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> <normanstr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I've come up against damaged CDs that simply wouldn't play on any of
> my
> > players. On 2 occasions I solved the problem by ripping the CD to my

> > computer with Exact Audio Copy, a neat program that keeps trying
> until it
> > gets something playable. Sometimes it takes many minutes of trying
> before
> > it succeeds, but in these 2 cases it produced a clean rip, which I
> then
> > burned to a CDR. It may be hard to fathom, but it's possible in this

> > fashion to acutally improve a CD.

> Had the same experience last week with a CD borrowed from the library.
> Periphery of the disk was so scratched up that the last four tracks
> wouldn't play at all. But iTunes ripped it just fine. Why can a $1000
> computer do it, and not a $1000 CD player?

iTunes may have ripped it in 'burst' mode, which is not necessarily a
bit-perfect rip. My experience is that accurate CDROM rips are *more* sensitive
to disc damage than just playing a disc in a standard , error-correcting
CD player. For me, highly scratched discs that play fine in a CD
player can rip *very* slowly in a PC CD drive with EAC in highest security mode
-- and can still generate synch or other errors. I've also encountered a
few discs that bear no apparent damage but still activate the drive
slowdown/repeated sector reading behavior of EAC's high security mode --
these tend to be old discs, from the 80s, I've noticed
(e.g., Prince's 'Sign of the Times')

My experience has been that *automobile* CD players can play almost anything,
except the very worst damaged discs. I imagine it's due to massive
buffering and interpolative error correction in such gear.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d4mvrd01f5e@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> Had the same experience last week with a CD borrowed from the library.
> Periphery of the disk was so scratched up that the last four tracks
> wouldn't play at all. But iTunes ripped it just fine. Why can a $1000
> computer do it, and not a $1000 CD player?
>
I don't know whether this "solution" has been suggested yet, so ......
Maybe the lens in the CD player is dirtier and needs to be cleaned? Buy one
of those discs with attached bristles that can be moistened with a provided
solvent. Maybe the rails along which the lens travels is dirty? Blow some
compressed air into the drawer along the rail pathway, or open up the player
and lightly apply some cleaner and lubricant along the rails. I do one or
the other, and sometimes both and the problem goes away, sometimes for
several years, others permanently. I think there are many other reasons and
a $300 'puter and $300 CD player can both do the job quite well. Save the
extra $700 to buy more CDs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> > Had the same experience last week with a CD borrowed from the
library.
> > Periphery of the disk was so scratched up that the last four tracks
> > wouldn't play at all. But iTunes ripped it just fine. Why can a
$1000
> > computer do it, and not a $1000 CD player?
>
> iTunes may have ripped it in 'burst' mode, which is not necessarily a

> bit-perfect rip.

Yeah, but I wound up with a playable disk, and absolute quality wasn't
too important since I didn't intend to keep it permanently (which would
be illegal, technically).

But please enlighten me about 'burst' mode. I've never really tested
iTunes to see whether I was getting bit-perfect copies. Frankly, it's a
convenience for me; mostly I'm copying disks to have a spare for the
car, where I'm not so fussy about sound. iTunes (on a Mac) is ideal for
that. As my friend the Linux programmer says, "And because it's a Mac,
it just works."

bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:

> > > Had the same experience last week with a CD borrowed from the
> library.
> > > Periphery of the disk was so scratched up that the last four tracks
> > > wouldn't play at all. But iTunes ripped it just fine. Why can a
> $1000
> > > computer do it, and not a $1000 CD player?
> >
> > iTunes may have ripped it in 'burst' mode, which is not necessarily a

> > bit-perfect rip.

> Yeah, but I wound up with a playable disk, and absolute quality wasn't
> too important since I didn't intend to keep it permanently (which would
> be illegal, technically).

FWIW, I'm certainly not saying I could *distinguish* a burst-mode ripped
track from a bit-perfect rip, by listening to it. Sometimes you gotta do what
you gotta do, and with luck it makes no audible difference.

> But please enlighten me about 'burst' mode. I've never really tested
> iTunes to see whether I was getting bit-perfect copies.

Burst mode means ripping without any error detection. But actually
I'm using 'burst' mode to stand in for any non-high-security-mode rip --
see documentation for Exact Audio Copy (scattered around the web,
unfortunately, but www.exactaudiocopy.de is a good place to start)
for details on what 'high security' means.



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee