[doug s.]

interesting, your comments here.  why?  because i yust got back from woodsyi's house, partaking of his hospitality, & listening to a few digital playback systems w/a few members of the mid-atlantic audio circle.  we listened to am unmodded transporter, a way-modded squeezebox thing, done up by bolder cables, including a spendy upgrade power supply, & a basically stock squeezebox fed into an empirical mods pace-car, feeding a northstar 24/192 dac.  preamp was a highly modded modwright unit, you will have to ask rim specifics, i don't know them.  i've heard it before, & it's excellent, imo.  rim was nice enough to humour me by allowing me to bring one of my lowly modded art di/o's along, so i could compare it to the much spendier spreads.  well, bottom line is that the di/o was absolutely no worse than any of the other combo's we listened to this evening.  why do i say "no worse", instead of something more complementary?  well, tho the di/o sounded as good as any other digital we listened to, (all were so close as to be pretty-much impossible to reliably distinguish between them), rim has a really sweet analog set-up, (two in fact!), & the winyl being spun was so much better sounding than the digital, it was no contest!   

doug s.

Doug, can you elaborate more on what you guys heard?  I will be doing a similar A+B test in the not too near future.  What, may I ask, is the "lowly modded art di/o" exactly....?  And BTW, I agree with your final analysis:  as much as people huff and puff about digital, it still does not cut it.  Digital cannot transcend its inherent flaw in sound processing.  We need a new recording or data technology that can take the analogue signal that is music and spit it onto a smaller, more portable medium other than vinyl.  Anyway, here is a quote from a WIRED magazine article documenting the recent renaissance in vinyl:

Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.

"The digital world will never get there," said Chris Ashworth, owner of United Record Pressing, the country's largest record pressing plant.

(http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/listeningpost_1029)

not sure what you mean when you ask "what we heard".  we heard a paul simon cut over & over again!     (again, i would have to defer to rim as to what it was; i was unfamiliar w/it, but it was definitely more of a "world music" type song, not a pop song.)  i was listening for soundstaging, tonality, detail, prat...  at first, the bolder modded squeezebox seemed to be noticeably inferior to the others, which were hard to distinguish.  but later, the bolder modded squeezebox/bolder p/s seemed as good - it seems that its wolume level was reduced, & this made all the difference.  we were unable to exactly match wolumes, cuz it would have meant reducing the digital wolume of both the modwright transporter, & the squeezebox feeding the pace-car/north star dac so much as to introduce distortion - it's well known that the digital wolume pots need to be near-max for them to be transparent.  and, the wolume of the modded squeezebox was too soft, even at full gain, compared to th others.  so, what we did was listen to the same song from start to finish on all four set-ups.  the art di/o was run thru the modwright transporter's digital out, as its source.  (in my experience, if i had brought an additional isolation transformer for the transporter as well as the di/o, it may have oimproved things even further, as this has been my experience w/my di/o - separate iso-tranny's for dac & transport offer lower noise-floor & more detail.)  in any event, the bottom line was everything was so close, it was not possible to judge any one better than the other, imo.  we also tested one female wocal, (cassandra wilson? - i dunno), that rim said was his "test" for sibilance, as it seemed every word in the song had an "s" in it, lol...  one guy said he thought the di/o handled sibilance best.  rim looked surprised at his comment, me too - imo, the stock squeezebox/pace-car/north-star dac had the least sibilance, but it was my opinion that it was due to its playback level being lower.  but, by then, listening fatigue had set in, & no one thought it worthwhile to try to discern any more differences.  so we cue'd up some winyl, & heard some music!   

rim's system, btw is killer - you can get all the specifics here.  except he recently retired his basis 1400 turntable & is now using a rim-drive (pun not intended, lol!) teres deck with origin-live encounter tonearm & benz ruby 3 cartridge.
http://www.audiocircle.com/systems/index.php?systemid=361

re: your & freo's take on winyl vs digital, imo if standard redbook cd were 24/176.4 or 24/192, then digital could equal or surpass winyl.  but it's not, so it can't.  pretty simple, really...  and, since i cannot go into the basic music store or go on-line & buy standard 24/192 or 24/176.4 discs of any software i might wanna buy, the theoretical argument that 24/192 or 24/176.4 is better than winyl is a moot point...

doug s.

oh yeah - what's a di/o?  seem my ad on this site, posted earlier in this thread, for starters; there's a huge wealth of info about modding these things on the web...  (this di/o is the one i brought to rim's for the comparison; i have two others.    )
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=49382.0

[Freo-1]

re: your & freo's take on winyl vs digital, imo if standard redbook cd were 24/176.4 or 24/192, then digital could equal or surpass winyl.  but it's not, so it can't.  pretty simple, really...  and, since i cannot go into the basic music store or go on-line & buy standard 24/192 or 24/176.4 discs of any software i might wanna buy, the theoretical argument that 24/192 or 24/176.4 is better than winyl is a moot point...

Well, it depends on the choice in music. There is a LOT of classical in SACD,  and a fair bit of Jazz in SACD as well. The pop selections are indeed limited.

BTW, much of current music is recorded in a such a terrible state,  it would not matter what you played it back on.

For most of the music I want to own, I can get it in SACD or DVD Audio (mostly SACD). The Europeans seem to still be cranking out SACD media (thank goodness for that!)  aa

[Geardaddy]

Well, it depends on the choice in music. There is a LOT of classical in SACD,  and a fair bit of Jazz in SACD as well. The pop selections are indeed limited.

BTW, much of current music is recorded in a such a terrible state,  it would not matter what you played it back on.

For most of the music I want to own, I can get it in SACD or DVD Audio (mostly SACD). The Europeans seem to still be cranking out SACD media (thank goodness for that!)  aa

Freo-1, I agree with your statement about the sorry state of digital recordings (I just reviewed a well known recording engineers rant on the subject:  http://georgegraham.com/compress.html).  A significant # of CDs just suck (including SACDs).  In regards to digital media, yes, there is greater dynamic range and a lower noise floor, but there is also (IMO) a greater sense of steritily.  Yes, the flourescent lighting allows you to cut into the body and see every piece of anatomy, but there is no blood.  This is of course my "psychoacoustic" bias. 

[doug s.]

re: your & freo's take on winyl vs digital, imo if standard redbook cd were 24/176.4 or 24/192, then digital could equal or surpass winyl.  but it's not, so it can't.  pretty simple, really...  and, since i cannot go into the basic music store or go on-line & buy standard 24/192 or 24/176.4 discs of any software i might wanna buy, the theoretical argument that 24/192 or 24/176.4 is better than winyl is a moot point...

Well, it depends on the choice in music. There is a LOT of classical in SACD,  and a fair bit of Jazz in SACD as well. The pop selections are indeed limited.

BTW, much of current music is recorded in a such a terrible state,  it would not matter what you played it back on.

For most of the music I want to own, I can get it in SACD or DVD Audio (mostly SACD). The Europeans seem to still be cranking out SACD media (thank goodness for that!)  aa

well, most of my software purchases are due to something i have heard on the radio, or due to something i have seen/heard whilst browsing at a music store, or while listening at a friend's house.  (thanks, rim, btw, for turning me on to sonny rollins' "way out west" - awesome!)  it's usually jazz or world or caribbean or latin or folk...

i have heard sacd & dvd-a, & it's certainly not so much better than redbook to make me actually want to buy the hardware to play it, what w/the limited selections awailable.  i am yust not interested in supporting a fringe digital software format.  if the industry doesn't make it the mainstream format, it can go away as far as i am concerned.  i don't mind buying winyl - i awreddy have ~1000 albums, & if i hear something i like & it's awailable on winyl, then i will get it.  if not, i am happy to get the cd.  but having to worry about sacd or dvd-a, too, when they're at least as limited as winyl?  not for me, thanks...

actually, most of my listening is done w/fm - whatever the station cues up is what i listen to.      and, if you don't think fm can as good as a good digital or winyl playback system, then you have never heard a quality broadcast thru a quality tuna.   

doug s.

[JLM]

Pirate,

You might want to hold off for the Duet over the Squeeze Box as it has sound quality lending and functional advantages.  Plus it has the potential for easier mods.  If you go the SB/Duet route I hope you're "comfortable" with computers and remember to get a remote backup HD. 

You might also want to go back and read my earlier posts here.

Sound quality versus dollars, you'd be hard pressed to beat whatever mods Wayne at Bolder Cables offers.

[Geardaddy]

Pirate,

You might want to hold off for the Duet over the Squeeze Box as it has sound quality lending and functional advantages.  Plus it has the potential for easier mods.  If you go the SB/Duet route I hope you're "comfortable" with computers and remember to get a remote backup HD. 

You might also want to go back and read my earlier posts here.

Sound quality versus dollars, you'd be hard pressed to beat whatever mods Wayne at Bolder Cables offers.

Agreed.  I spoke with Wayne about the Duet and he said it would be easier to tinker with....

[Les Lammers]

Well, it depends on the choice in music. There is a LOT of classical in SACD,  and a fair bit of Jazz in SACD as well. The pop selections are indeed limited.

BTW, much of current music is recorded in a such a terrible state,  it would not matter what you played it back on.
For most of the music I want to own, I can get it in SACD or DVD Audio (mostly SACD). The Europeans seem to still be cranking out SACD media (thank goodness for that!)  aa

Freo-1, I agree with your statement about the sorry state of digital recordings (I just reviewed a well known recording engineers rant on the subject:  http://georgegraham.com/compress.html).  A significant # of CDs just suck (including SACDs).  In regards to digital media, yes, there is greater dynamic range and a lower noise floor, but there is also (IMO) a greater sense of steritily.  Yes, the flourescent lighting allows you to cut into the body and see every piece of anatomy, but there is no blood.  This is of course my "psychoacoustic" bias. 

The crappy new recordings and a high res system mark the beginning of Audio Hell. 

[doug s.]

Pirate,

You might want to hold off for the Duet over the Squeeze Box as it has sound quality lending and functional advantages.  Plus it has the potential for easier mods.  If you go the SB/Duet route I hope you're "comfortable" with computers and remember to get a remote backup HD. 

You might also want to go back and read my earlier posts here.

Sound quality versus dollars, you'd be hard pressed to beat whatever mods Wayne at Bolder Cables offers.

if you get a decent inexpensive dac, you don't need to spend much (if anything?) on modding the squeezebox or duet.  if you're talking about a mensa di/o, i agree it's hard to beat wayne's mods.   

doug s.

[Freo-1]

have heard sacd & dvd-a, & it's certainly not so much better than redbook to make me actually want to buy the hardware to play it, what w/the limited selections awailable.  i am yust not interested in supporting a fringe digital software format.  if the industry doesn't make it the mainstream format, it can go away as far as i am concerned.  i don't mind buying winyl - i awreddy have ~1000 albums, & if i hear something i like & it's awailable on winyl, then i will get it.  if not, i am happy to get the cd.  but having to worry about sacd or dvd-a, too, when they're at least as limited as winyl?  not for me, thanks...

Doug, I have to take issue with this (a minor issue, anyway.)  I have had SACD/DVD playback for a couple of years now, and the difference is not subtle. There is a MARKED upgrade in sound quality with SACD over red book CD.  I also have a fair amount of SACD media, and in each case where there is a corresponding CD of the same recording, the SACD provides performance that is close to the master tape reference. It is espcially noticeable when running fire wire directly to a digital amp that supports the interface.

I understand the frustration with the format, but truth be told, we (the general public) is to blame. My God, many of the folks out there are listening to very dodgy sound as it is: (MP3 files of music often recorded poorly).

My experience with the formats suggest that if people can't hear the difference with SACD, the fault lies in their equipment, not their ears. The difference is there, and it's real.

[Freo-1]

Well, it depends on the choice in music. There is a LOT of classical in SACD,  and a fair bit of Jazz in SACD as well. The pop selections are indeed limited.

BTW, much of current music is recorded in a such a terrible state,  it would not matter what you played it back on.

For most of the music I want to own, I can get it in SACD or DVD Audio (mostly SACD). The Europeans seem to still be cranking out SACD media (thank goodness for that!)  aa

Freo-1, I agree with your statement about the sorry state of digital recordings (I just reviewed a well known recording engineers rant on the subject:  http://georgegraham.com/compress.html).  A significant # of CDs just suck (including SACDs).  In regards to digital media, yes, there is greater dynamic range and a lower noise floor, but there is also (IMO) a greater sense of steritily.  Yes, the flourescent lighting allows you to cut into the body and see every piece of anatomy, but there is no blood.  This is of course my "psychoacoustic" bias. 

Thanks for the link, Geardaddy. Interesting read.

I totally understand where you are coming from on the bias comment. Record playback CAN sound tremendous. For me, the cost to obtain that,  looking past what it does wrong, and the inconvenience of the format eventually got me away from it.

To some extent, I have a similar experience with digital amplification of direct bit stream input vs. using a high quality CD/SACD with valve amplification.  The digital playback is almost flawless, but the tubes just seem to add a sense of presence.

[doug s.]

have heard sacd & dvd-a, & it's certainly not so much better than redbook to make me actually want to buy the hardware to play it, what w/the limited selections awailable.  i am yust not interested in supporting a fringe digital software format.  if the industry doesn't make it the mainstream format, it can go away as far as i am concerned.  i don't mind buying winyl - i awreddy have ~1000 albums, & if i hear something i like & it's awailable on winyl, then i will get it.  if not, i am happy to get the cd.  but having to worry about sacd or dvd-a, too, when they're at least as limited as winyl?  not for me, thanks...

Doug, I have to take issue with this (a minor issue, anyway.)  I have had SACD/DVD playback for a couple of years now, and the difference is not subtle. There is a MARKED upgrade in sound quality with SACD over red book CD.  I also have a fair amount of SACD media, and in each case where there is a corresponding CD of the same recording, the SACD provides performance that is close to the master tape reference. It is espcially noticeable when running fire wire directly to a digital amp that supports the interface.

I understand the frustration with the format, but truth be told, we (the general public) is to blame. My God, many of the folks out there are listening to very dodgy sound as it is: (MP3 files of music often recorded poorly).

My experience with the formats suggest that if people can't hear the difference with SACD, the fault lies in their equipment, not their ears. The difference is there, and it's real.

due to format issues, it's yust not worth it for me to pursue sacd/dvda.  sure, i have heard nice hi-rez digital formats, but, for me, it's yust easier to stick w/winyl for that.  if you are ok w/dealing w/sacd/dvda, enjoy!   

i disagree 100% w/you, tho, that the general public is to blame.  i believe the recording industry is 100% to blame.  redbook cd was jammed down the public's throat, like it or not, regardless of the fact that digital sounded like crap.  and, it sounded like crap for at least 10 years.  only since the late 90's, imo, had it progressed to the point where it was an enjoyable alternative to winyl, tho still not as good, even today.  the industry had good reason to do this - they could make a lot more money selling cd's for 50% more than winyl.  and, cd's cost only 5% of of the cost of winyl to manufacture.  the industry could yust as easily have forced sacd &/or dvda down the throats of the public if they wanted to.  but they didn't want to, because there was no money in it for them - it would be a big hardware inwestment, & dvda's & sacd's are no less expensive to mfr than redbook cd's.  they don't give a damn about the fact that it would actually be a sonic improvement.

doug s.

[Freo-1]

have heard sacd & dvd-a, & it's certainly not so much better than redbook to make me actually want to buy the hardware to play it, what w/the limited selections awailable.  i am yust not interested in supporting a fringe digital software format.  if the industry doesn't make it the mainstream format, it can go away as far as i am concerned.  i don't mind buying winyl - i awreddy have ~1000 albums, & if i hear something i like & it's awailable on winyl, then i will get it.  if not, i am happy to get the cd.  but having to worry about sacd or dvd-a, too, when they're at least as limited as winyl?  not for me, thanks...

Doug, I have to take issue with this (a minor issue, anyway.)  I have had SACD/DVD playback for a couple of years now, and the difference is not subtle. There is a MARKED upgrade in sound quality with SACD over red book CD.  I also have a fair amount of SACD media, and in each case where there is a corresponding CD of the same recording, the SACD provides performance that is close to the master tape reference. It is espcially noticeable when running fire wire directly to a digital amp that supports the interface.

I understand the frustration with the format, but truth be told, we (the general public) is to blame. My God, many of the folks out there are listening to very dodgy sound as it is: (MP3 files of music often recorded poorly).

My experience with the formats suggest that if people can't hear the difference with SACD, the fault lies in their equipment, not their ears. The difference is there, and it's real.

due to format issues, it's yust not worth it for me to pursue sacd/dvda.  sure, i have heard nice hi-rez digital formats, but, for me, it's yust easier to stick w/winyl for that.  if you are ok w/dealing w/sacd/dvda, enjoy!   

i disagree 100% w/you, tho, that the general public is to blame.  i believe the recording industry is 100% to blame.  redbook cd was jammed down the public's throat, like it or not, regardless of the fact that digital sounded like crap.  and, it sounded like crap for at least 10 years.  only since the late 90's, imo, had it progressed to the point where it was an enjoyable alternative to winyl, tho still not as good, even today.  the industry had good reason to do this - they could make a lot more money selling cd's for 50% more than winyl.  and, cd's cost only 5% of of the cost of winyl to manufacture.  the industry could yust as easily have forced sacd &/or dvda down the throats of the public if they wanted to.  but they didn't want to, because there was no money in it for them - it would be a big hardware inwestment, & dvda's & sacd's are no less expensive to mfr than redbook cd's.  they don't give a damn about the fact that it would actually be a sonic improvement.

doug s.

Well, here's the deal with CD. I do not think it was shoved down our throat at all. I remember all the hype when it came out, and it took a few years to catch on, but, truth be told, the public made the choice, not the record companies.   The public heard a general marked overall improvement over scratchy/dodgy Garrard/BSR tables of the day. Trust me, if the (general) public kept buying records, they would have kept making them.  You are conveniently overlooking the significant R&D cost to get the bloody format to market. I can assure you that for a number of years, the cost for CD was in deed MORE than vinyl.

The public failed to embrace SACD because they could not rip the files and play them on their units, period.  Most of the public does not even know what good sound reproduction is all about. Thanks to the marketing moguls, they actually think BOSE is top quality sound 

I think vinyl can sound fantastic, and I''m glad there are audiophiles that continue to support it.  Good sound is far more important than the delivery format 

I will continue to seek out SACD media when available.  Sadly, for both of us, we are truly a niche market in the grand scheme of things.   

[doug s.]

Well, here's the deal with CD. I do not think it was shoved down our throat at all. I remember all the hype when it came out, and it took a few years to catch on, but, truth be told, the public made the choice, not the record companies.   The public heard a general marked overall improvement over scratchy/dodgy Garrard/BSR tables of the day. Trust me, if the (general) public kept buying records, they would have kept making them.  You are conveniently overlooking the significant R&D cost to get the bloody format to market. I can assure you that for a number of years, the cost for CD was in deed MORE than vinyl.

The public failed to embrace SACD because they could not rip the files and play them on their units, period.  Most of the public does not even know what good sound reproduction is all about. Thanks to the marketing moguls, they actually think BOSE is top quality sound 

I think vinyl can sound fantastic, and I''m glad there are audiophiles that continue to support it.  Good sound is far more important than the delivery format 

I will continue to seek out SACD media when available.  Sadly, for both of us, we are truly a niche market in the grand scheme of things.   

i remember when cd came out, as well - perfect sound forever.     i also remember that the record companies yust started phasing out winyl & making cd's instead.  they could have done the same w/a hi-rez format.  regardless of what john q public thinks about sound quality. 

you're right - there was a big initial start-up cost w/cd.  but the profit potential was staggering, which is why the industry phased out winyl in favor of cd's.  what the customer wanted to buy made no difference.  the customer was simply told it was better.  (it's only recently that winyl is experiencing a mini-renaissance, as folks concerned about sound realize it's still superior.)  the profit potential of cd vs winyl, due to much cheaper manufacturing costs was the main driver.  that driver isn't there now.  otherwise, you can be sure the recording industry would have made the switch & phased out redbook.  and then, you would be able to rip your hi-rez format files & play them on your unit, etc...

ymmv,

doug s.

[Freo-1]

Well, here's the deal with CD. I do not think it was shoved down our throat at all. I remember all the hype when it came out, and it took a few years to catch on, but, truth be told, the public made the choice, not the record companies.   The public heard a general marked overall improvement over scratchy/dodgy Garrard/BSR tables of the day. Trust me, if the (general) public kept buying records, they would have kept making them.  You are conveniently overlooking the significant R&D cost to get the bloody format to market. I can assure you that for a number of years, the cost for CD was in deed MORE than vinyl.

The public failed to embrace SACD because they could not rip the files and play them on their units, period.  Most of the public does not even know what good sound reproduction is all about. Thanks to the marketing moguls, they actually think BOSE is top quality sound 

I think vinyl can sound fantastic, and I''m glad there are audiophiles that continue to support it.  Good sound is far more important than the delivery format 

I will continue to seek out SACD media when available.  Sadly, for both of us, we are truly a niche market in the grand scheme of things.   

i remember when cd came out, as well - perfect sound forever.     i also remember that the record companies yust started phasing out winyl & making cd's instead.  they could have done the same w/a hi-rez format.  regardless of what john q public thinks about sound quality. 

you're right - there was a big initial start-up cost w/cd.  but the profit potential was staggering, which is why the industry phased out winyl in favor of cd's.  what the customer wanted to buy made no difference.  the customer was simply told it was better.  (it's only recently that winyl is experiencing a mini-renaissance, as folks concerned about sound realize it's still superior.)  the profit potential of cd vs winyl, due to much cheaper manufacturing costs was the main driver.  that driver isn't there now.  otherwise, you can be sure the recording industry would have made the switch & phased out redbook.  and then, you would be able to rip your hi-rez format files & play them on your unit, etc...

ymmv,

doug s.

Hi Doug,

My view varies slightly (not as much as it sounds sometimes). I had good friends in the music sales biz and the audio biz back in the  day (I almost bought into the audio store..boy, am I glad I did not!)

The industry was happy to sell whatever the public would buy. The local college music store sold more vinyl than the average store, but numbers for demand did not lie. The wound getting stuck with a LOT of vinyl no one wanted. (Man, if you only could have access too that now, eh?).

Home theater arrived shortly thereafter, and stereo as we all know and love kind of died the day home theater was born. It took awhile, but it did happen.

I maintain that if the public could rip SACD and play it back on their gear, it would have taken off. I'm not going to stick up for Sony, but, they tried their damnest to make SACD work. They stuffed SACD decoders in all the HTIB that John and Jane Q Public buy, and they stuck sampler disks to boot. People were more concerned about the sound for movies, and their favorite new music was good enough on MP 3 "cause it was free".

I guess I am more willing to hold everyday people accountable for their actions (or inactions).  We seem to be losing this trait across the board (oops! Sorry, can't go there here  )

Cheers,

[Gordy]

I maintain that if the public could rip SACD and play it back on their gear, it would have taken off. I'm not going to stick up for Sony, but, they tried their damnest to make SACD work.

My personal experience was just the opposite, as I recall it.  Even in SACD's heyday nobody I knew had ever heard of it, outside of audio freaks.  Record shop employees rarely were aware of it's existence and owners were hardly any better informed.  Sony marketed it as a high end product and, for the most part, priced it that way as well.  At a time when people were calling for a reduction in price of the $18 cd, Sony saw fit to release the $22 SACD      Other than platinum selling re-issues and Jazz, little popular music was to be found in the catalog. Slight exaggeration there but, not by much!  Just an opinion 

[Freo-1]

I maintain that if the public could rip SACD and play it back on their gear, it would have taken off. I'm not going to stick up for Sony, but, they tried their damnest to make SACD work.

My personal experience was just the opposite, as I recall it.  Even in SACD's heyday nobody I knew had ever heard of it, outside of audio freaks.  Record shop employees rarely were aware of it's existence and owners were hardly any better informed.  Sony marketed it as a high end product and, for the most part, priced it that way as well.  At a time when people were calling for a reduction in price of the $18 cd, Sony saw fit to release the $22 SACD      Other than platinum selling re-issues and Jazz, little popular music was to be found in the catalog. Slight exaggeration there but, not by much!  Just an opinion 

Gordy, you make some salient points. I think the initial price was an attempt to recover the startup costs. They got smarter later with the dual layer disks, which have been priced around the same as regular CDs.  Sony did try to mass market by putting SACD in all those HTIB systems at department stores.

Most of the media I get now is made in the EU, where there still seems to be a market for them.

[bacobits1]

Back to the original subject and a bit of a rant. Sorry.

This is what has been going on here for the last 3 weeks almost that I have been trying to find a Red Book CD player. I have around 1200, I have to have CD.
Last night there were 620 single box players on Agone. There must be an awful lot of unhappy "digital" campers out there. You see quite a few of the same machines on there too. A pattern?

I am after a reliable CD only player. Yea right!
If you read the comments on AA there are problems with transports or similar problems with almost everything produced. Lots of Rega, Marantz, Sony, Cambridge Audio, Sim, Cary and it does go on. No Chinese, I had a Consonance T120 linear in here dead out of the box. Besides being a piece of junk it also has a history of you know what, drawer/ read problems. One thing in common are the problems from mostly SACD combo players even though the T120 is not. I was going to buy a Sony XA9000es until the guy tells me he was having a drawer problem. The only reason he was probably using the Sony was because he was having a problem with his Cary 306. I feel sorry for him. Damn, that is a $7G retail machine. You get the point.
 
To hell with Sony and SACD it's dead. I have 5 of them. I had an XA777es too and sold it before it developed problems. I do not want to go the server route either call me old fashioned.
HDCD? That too is practically defunct. MS bought it, for what?

So, this is what I did. Wise decision ? I don't know till I get it in.
I bought a mint condition Denon 1650AR to use as a transport on a Benchmark DAC1.
I have had a 1650AR in the past too and it's a nicely built solid machine. Not bad sounding alone either.
Total investment $1050. I was looking to spend more, I could of spent more. I didn't.

I've been in audio over 30 years addicted and have never seen the fiasco that is going on with these formats.
AND the music industry deserves every bit they are getting.

Rant over!

Den

[doug s.]

funny you mention the denon.  i was yust getting ready to recommend one, reading your post...  i have been using a used denon dcm560 5-disc changer, that i picked up for $80 a few years ago; it hasn't missed a beat.  tho i think you way over-spent on your dac - most folks who have compared, prefer the modded art di/o, or find no difference.  but, you could have done a lot worse!   

doug s.,
(sale pending on my di/o, btw...)

Back to the original subject and a bit of a rant. Sorry.

This is what has been going on here for the last 3 weeks almost that I have been trying to find a Red Book CD player. I have around 1200, I have to have CD.
Last night there were 620 single box players on Agone. There must be an awful lot of unhappy "digital" campers out there. You see quite a few of the same machines on there too. A pattern?

I am after a reliable CD only player. Yea right!
If you read the comments on AA there are problems with transports or similar problems with almost everything produced. Lots of Rega, Marantz, Sony, Cambridge Audio, Sim, Cary and it does go on. No Chinese, I had a Consonance T120 linear in here dead out of the box. Besides being a piece of junk it also has a history of you know what, drawer/ read problems. One thing in common are the problems from mostly SACD combo players even though the T120 is not. I was going to buy a Sony XA9000es until the guy tells me he was having a drawer problem. The only reason he was probably using the Sony was because he was having a problem with his Cary 306. I feel sorry for him. Damn, that is a $7G retail machine. You get the point.
 
To hell with Sony and SACD it's dead. I have 5 of them. I had an XA777es too and sold it before it developed problems. I do not want to go the server route either call me old fashioned.
HDCD? That too is practically defunct. MS bought it, for what?

So, this is what I did. Wise decision ? I don't know till I get it in.
I bought a mint condition Denon 1650AR to use as a transport on a Benchmark DAC1.
I have had a 1650AR in the past too and it's a nicely built solid machine. Not bad sounding alone either.
Total investment $1050. I was looking to spend more, I could of spent more. I didn't.

I've been in audio over 30 years addicted and have never seen the fiasco that is going on with these formats.
AND the music industry deserves every bit they are getting.

Rant over!

Den

[bacobits1]

Doug,

I did read the comments on the souped up di/o after I bought the Benchmark DAC1.
Some of the most solid machines  were the CAL audio. I had 2 CAL Icon's too.
What a friggin' hobby!
Frankly, all I want to do is listen for awhile. I did not anticipate all the CD player problems.
There's more but I won't get into it.
My BP is up. LOL!

Den

[laserman]

As a Rega CDP owner (four of them) they are very reliable.  I have an original Planet that is about 7 years old and has had no issues, a five year Planet 2000 that did have a transporter issue after very extensive run times and it was repaired by Rega without incident, a three year old Jupiter with no issues, and a two year old Apollo that operates perfectly except when I forget to push the dang cd down.     Operator error due to having the other units. 

Even from the issues I have read about with Rega players, they all seem to get resolved.

Just my $.02.

L