[eric the red]

I stupidly sold my first one last year and have regretted it ever since. Found one last week for a great price (seems Rega is New and Improving their cdp line and the prices of used Planets and Jupiters are subsequently dropping) on the Gone and it arrived today. Fantastic sound, great looks and fun to own. Am one happy camper

[fredgarvin]

Eric, I have heard the Regas' characterized as 'polite' sounding. My guess is that you would disagree with that and what were you using before? Thanks for any info. I have heard raves about the new SATURN ? I am using a Marantz cd5000 that so far sounds better than a couple DAC'S I have tried.

[eric the red]

To be honest Fred, I haven't heard all that much of a difference in the sonics of cdps. From the $6000.00 Pioneer DV-AX10, the $2000.00 Philips SACD 1000, the Jupiter, a few Planet 2000s on down that I've owned, the only really noticeable sonic difference was a Jolida cdp with some RCA blackplates in it that sounded really open and tubey compared to the other ss players. I have a Philips 963SA that the Jupiter just replaced and again, the sonic differences (if any) are extremely minor between the two. I simply like the Jupiter better than any player I've had for some reason plus I got a good deal on it. Everyone is looking for a magic way to polish the cd turd with which we're stuck with (in my case 600 of them) and I don't think you have to spend what the new Saturns are going to go for ($2500.00??) for comparable sound. That being said, I DO have a Philips 963SA that I'll sell you for cheap and throw in 4 SACDs in the deal...

[Frihed91]

So many of the upsampling dacs sound very much the same across a very wide price range.  Tube output stages change the sound.  The Quad 99 and the Naim 5i, among the less expensive CDPs, also have a distinctive sound of their own.  But so many sound ultra quiet, ultra detailed, with nice extension and reasonably or good, tight bass, and very little PRAT.  Is that progress?  It's kind of like the change in tennis from the serve and volley to the baseline game: lacking in enthusiasm and booringly good.

[eric the red]

So many of the upsampling dacs sound very much the same across a very wide price range.  Tube output stages change the sound.  The Quad 99 and the Naim 5i, among the less expensive CDPs, also have a distinctive sound of their own.  But so many sound ultra quiet, ultra detailed, with nice extension and reasonably or good, tight bass, and very little PRAT.  Is that progress?  It's kind of like the change in tennis from the serve and volley to the baseline game: lacking in enthusiasm and booringly good.

I agree-there is only so much info that a cdp can suck off a disc and many sound virtually identical these days no matter what the price. And now Rega has re-invented the wheel? Doubt it. How much further can redbook playbook advance anyway given the limitations of the cd? The Jolida was cool because it was a whole different sound and very easy to listen to. The Jupiter sounds just fine and I like the design. It's nice to see folks jumping ship and selling their former giant killers at 50-70% off retail, but that's the nature of this hobby isn't it?

[ken]

with so many cd players pretty much sounding the same here's some "snake oil" used on cd's that's supposed to make a signifigant change for the better http://www.xtremecables.com/proddetail.php?prod=1.0_Liquid_Rez

[john1970]

Ken,

Interesting post.  I find it very difficult to believe that ANYONE would fork over $100 for that BS!  If you want to improve the sound put the $$$ into the weakest link --- THE SPEAKERS!!

Seriously, I remember when I purchased my VMPS RM40 speakers from a local dealer they told me that 90+% of the sound you hear is due to the speakers.  The amplifier was second and sources a distant third. 

Just my $0.02,

John

[zybar]

Ken,

Interesting post.  I find it very difficult to believe that ANYONE would fork over $100 for that BS!  If you want to improve the sound put the $$$ into the weakest link --- THE SPEAKERS!!

Seriously, I remember when I purchased my VMPS RM40 speakers from a local dealer they told me that 90+% of the sound you hear is due to the speakers.  The amplifier was second and sources a distant third. 

Just my $0.02,

John

You really believe 90% + of your sound is due to your speakers?   

So ALL the other components only influence 10% of your sound?

Thanks for providing me a good chuckle this afternoon John. 

George

[bunky]

Ken,

Interesting post.  I find it very difficult to believe that ANYONE would fork over $100 for that BS!  If you want to improve the sound put the $$$ into the weakest link --- THE SPEAKERS!!

Seriously, I remember when I purchased my VMPS RM40 speakers from a local dealer they told me that 90+% of the sound you hear is due to the speakers.  The amplifier was second and sources a distant third. 

Just my $0.02,

John

I was taught that the source was critical to good sound and i believe the phrase used was "garbage in equals garbage out"

[john1970]

Unless your source is a open reel deck without noise reduction (Dolby or DBX) I doubt if it will sound like garbage.  With today's high-res formats (CD) even relatively inexpensive CD players (NAD C521 for ~$300) sound exceptional. 

Seriously, the other day I auditioned an amp and CD player that each cost in excess of $3000/each.  They were hoooked up to a pair of Revel floorstanding speakers.  Regardless of the front end electronics, the deep bass was absent (relative to my RM40s). 

THE POINT: If the speaker can not reproduce the frequency range (due to design) no amount of dollars spent on front-end equipment will fix the problem.  BUY FULL-RANGE SPEAKERS!

Cheers,

John

[zybar]

Unless your source is a open reel deck without noise reduction (Dolby or DBX) I doubt if it will sound like garbage.  With today's high-res formats (CD) even relatively inexpensive CD players (NAD C521 for ~$300) sound exceptional. 

Seriously, the other day I auditioned an amp and CD player that each cost in excess of $3000/each.  They were hoooked up to a pair of Revel floorstanding speakers.  Regardless of the front end electronics, the deep bass was absent (relative to my RM40s). 

THE POINT: If the speaker can not reproduce the frequency range (due to design) no amount of dollars spent on front-end equipment will fix the problem.  BUY FULL-RANGE SPEAKERS!

Cheers,

John

What does having full range speakers have to do with your previous post of 90% + of your sound being dependent on your speakers?

Between that comment and the one about the $300 NAD cd player producing exceptional sound, I think it clearly shows the people on the board where you stand on gear (outside of speakers) making a difference.

While I don't agree with you, knowing your point of view allows others to better understand your posts and to make their own judgements.

Enjoy your system.

George

[ken]

John,

I wasn't endorsing the product as I have never used it and don't know anyone who has used it.  I just happened to pick it up off a post in audioasylum for  a review on the VMPS RM 40's but after reading through the review again I can't help but think the reviewer's real objective was to shill for the liquid resolution.  here's a link to the review http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/230600.html I do disagree with your assessment about 90% of what you hear or don't hear is the speakers fault.  WHile I do think speakers are probably the most important component I think the ratio is more like 60/40 - 70/30

[Frihed91]

My experience is that getting everything to work together, well, is a) often accidental and hard to accomplish by design.  I also found b) that cables can make a really big difference in bringing a system together and that c) having a quiet system (free from line interference) is a prerequisite.   Finally, i found that d) it can be both sonically exhilirating and full of variety in the results to mix tube equipment with SS.  Tube sources really do sound different than SS sources, but I am not convinced that tubes + no digital filtering is "better" than SS + digital filtering, but it does change the sound of the music.

These are just my experiences and are not based on any theories or science.  My conclusion is that it is really hard to find out what we like the best until we experience a lot of alternatives.  So, like i said, good accidents happen often, but stay open for new sounds that you may like better (not necessaril better sounds, except for you).

[Bob Reynolds]

Since we're all just lobbing volleys, I'll throw out a few as well.

1) What exactly are the inherent limitations of Redbook CD? Not enough samples? Too few bits per sample? What?

2) I believe the source being the most important component argument originated with Linn and their turntable. At that time it probably made sense. They continue that stance today with CD. I don't buy it.

3) Solid state electronics (source, preamp, amp) for the last decade have been good enough to create a good representation of the source signal at the speaker binding posts. That may not be what you want in your audio system.

4) Speakers and the room interface are the last research area in audio. I don't agree with John's comment about buying full range speakers (for obvious acoustic reasons relating to bass frequencies and room dimensions), but I do strongly support full range speaker "systems," e.g., sat/sub systems.

-- Bob

[WEEZ]

I think I understand the intent of john1970's post regarding the importance of the speaker system. (and it's interaction with the room, I might add..). It is, after all, the acoustics that determine the frequency balance and over-all 'personality' of the sound of a hi-fi system, and the speakers should be chosen carefully as they ARE the most influencial.

I would, however, argue against the 'source' being last in the pecking order. I would argue for the quality of the source being second to the loudspeaker/room interface; with amplification being a close third. Purely from a frequency response perspective, most amplification will play what it is fed in terms of frequency response. It's the resolution and detail that separate the 'best' from the merely 'good' when it comes to amplification. (along with other spatial, power, and ambiant characteristics...)

I used to think that most digital sources sounded the same. And at the lower end of the spectrum, they mostly do. However, the improvement in sound between an entry level NAD player and an entry level Rega, Naim, or CEC player is profound. The added cost for a better source will have a more sigificant impact on sound accuracy and satisfaction than the same added cost for amplification. (most of the time.... )

(IMHO, the source has an even greater impact with analog than with digital )

eric the red: congrat's on the Jupiter. nice player.

WEEZ



 

[john1970]

The nice thing about this hobby is that everyone has their opinions and generally speaking are willing to listen to others.  I must admit that I am no concert pianist and do not have pitch perfect hearing.  A few years ago I auditioned a varieity of CD players by NAD, Rotel, Cambridge Audio, and Rega (sorry its been so long I don't remember the models, but all cost <$1K at the time).  In all honesty I could not hear a noticeable improvement among the sources.  Some did sound different, but not necessarily an improvement. 

I definitely agree that analog sources are much more revealing that digital sources especially phono cartridges.  However, I no longer listen to vinyl (too difficult to store and difficult to replace records these days). 

John

[GHM]

Yeah I had to laugh at that one myself.
The source is definitely in the the top two on the priority list. Without a source ..you have no sound to push into the speaker. It is the brain of the system..everything else just follows. Speakers have their place but their not number 1.

I use to think sources sounded similar ..even transports. Depending on what you're listening too, some do sound the same or similar. It is certainly not the case across the board. It took moving to a high resolution speaker to truly hear the differences. Also the more time you spend with the same speakers..the easier it will be to hear differences. I also thought starting out.. I had to spend tons of money to get performance.... Not always true. Dig a little deeper,check out the DIY products and kits. You may find that you get quite a bit more for your money with the obscure companies. I stopped being a name hound several years back. Now if it's not built by one man or a very small company..I have no real interest in it.

Too make it fair lets just say 33% source 33% for amplication 33% speakers/room. We'll give the 1% to the cables.

If I knew then what I know now..man I could have saved thousands!! 

Congrats on the player!!



 Good listening

[fredgarvin]

John1970 is correct in that differences and quality of sound between various speaker systems are gargantuan compared to the other components. So in that regard they would be first in importance. Differences in the source are subtle in comparison although, to me, definately audible. I think I would say though,the number 2 in importance, or lets say audible differences, would be the preamp. I have always thought it ideal to find your speaker of choice and match your components to them. The lions' share of cost seems to be the speakers, as well. Usually. Cables are an afterthought, really, in comparison.