A realy cool cd player deesign

[Mehen]

Yeah vibration isolation is the main thing (and it is a very quiet player). Makes sense because with an electric motor practically attached to your cd (in the traditional way) you are never going to be able to get that kind of isolation.

edit: found this http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/793cec/ - explains the theory behind belt drive.

[Umfriend]

Uhm, I don't see why a CD would have to have a RPM within tight tolerances at all... (in contrast to vinyl of course). I don;t see how vibration comes into this either (with the sole exception of it causing audible noise (as in Ï can hear my cd player working[/i])).

[Dr Mordrid]

Is it just me or does this look like the data disc reader from Johnny Mnemonic?

[Technoid]

Is it just me or does this look like the data disc reader from Johnny Mnemonic?

Close enough

[Elie]

Some people still prefer Tube based audio, but what happens to it when it's connected to a non tube based amp? The audio would still be processed (Amplified) but solid state circuitry, and I would assume it would have some kind of negative effect.

The belt drive, I guess would appeal to audiophiles to minimize noise, the only reason I can think of.

[Technoid]

Audiophiles dont need any reason beoyond "its ridiculously expensive and the seller says it makes it sound better"

[lowlifecat]

Audiophiles dont need any reason beoyond "its ridiculously expensive and the seller says it makes it sound better"

take a pile of crap, paint it purple then sell it for 100$ as a aroma-accoustic audio enhancer...

[FatBastard]

Audiophiles dont need any reason beoyond "its ridiculously expensive and the seller says it makes it sound better"

Sane audiophiles trust their own ears before throwing their money away.
Expensive CD players do sound better, because they are better built. they have a better power supply, better DACs and higher grade connectors. that said, pass say, 500$, the law of diminishing returns kicks in full throttle, and there is no way that an audio freak like myself can tell the difference.

[Elie]

Question, now a days wouldn't you rather buy an expensive DVD player since it's also plays CD's?

Or do the "audiophiles" still prefer seperate components for their audio solution?

[FatBastard]

Question, now a days wouldn't you rather buy an expensive DVD player since it's also plays CD's?

Or do the "audiophiles" still prefer separate components for their audio solution?

Only If I can actually hear a difference, and if that difference is worth the extra money, and If I can effort the thing to begin with (which means if the wife lets me).
Usually CD players sound better then DVDs because they have better DACs and connectivity jacks. unlike a DVD that needs 8 DACs (front L/R , surround L/R , surround Back L/R and SW) the CD only requires two. (Stereo)
In most applications DVDs output digital data, via coax or optical jacks, connected to an AVR or a HT processor. This is one more reason why manufactures don't invest to much in the analogue stuff.


Now a days, BTW, I'd pick up a nice blue ray player. one that can also play SACD and DVD-A. and its movie playback is Dolby true HD and DTS HD (HDMI 1.3)

[Brian Ellis]

take a pile of crap, paint it purple then sell it for 100$ as a aroma-accoustic audio enhancer...

I agree, and the same applies to the pseudo-technical crap that many so-called audiophiles spout forth, when they haven't a clue what they are talking about. And some members here are not exempt from such spouting, mentioning no names in particular. As I explained in an earlier thread which some kind person deleted, I used to work in the highly professional audio industry and we debunked the many myths and crap by both double-blind listening tests in ideal conditions and by scientific measurements. In actual fact, much of upper-end price range equipment designed for the audiophile market does not perform well.

If I put a 1khz pure sine wave at 0db @ 16/44, and played back digitally from wav and then from a cd. They should both be bit for bit exactly the same?

Let's ignore the WAV, which is also digital and go straight from the analogue source (e.g., a Wien bridge oscillator, which is able to give the purest sine wave output) and compare the CD output with that. That would depend more on the equipment than anything. The sampling on a CD is at 38 kHz and the output from the DAC will contain components at this frequency and its harmonics. Even though this frequency is totally inaudible, The analogue waveform is passed through a 20-24 kHz low-pass filter and a narrow-band 38 kHz filter to eliminate both the fundamental and the harmonics. On good equipment the output would be a pure sine wave. On poor equipment it may be a slightly jagged sine wave seen on an oscilloscope. Audibly, you would not hear any difference, assuming the s/n ratio of the CD player was good, if played through the same amplifier/loudspeaker.

[az]

what does tube output do??

Mainly it introduces harmonic distortion (i.e. adds something to the sound that isn't supposed to be there). This makes the sound "fuller" and "warmer" and "more pleasing" to some people.

Before the invention of transistors, tubes were the only amplifiers there were. Shortly after the transistor was invented, tube designs did sound much better still, because the transistor designs sucked. High end audio used tubes (and some manufacturers still do) because people are used to their sound (just like people are saying vinyl sounds better, warmer etc. than CD) - which means they came to like the IMperfections, the distortion, the artifacts that tubes add to the sound - and because tubes look good, draw lots of power, are expensive and fragile. They just feel more "exotic" than transistors, which can be dirt cheap and still sound good.

Guitar amps still often use tubes. That's because they are overdriven intentionally to produce the distorted sound e-guitars are so popular for, and tubes do sound nicer when overdriven than transistors do (distortions are harmonic, clipping is soft). But you wouldn't want to overdrive a HiFi amp anyway.

You could of course get the same distortions tubes produce out of a DSP (which is also done; line6 make guitar amps that do this, for instance). But "Audiophiles" wouldn't buy those, because they are evil and digital etc. It's the same reason they think a thick ordinary copper cable cannot possibly sound as good as "audiophile" cables without there ever being a scientifically sound reason why the "audiophile" cables should sound better.

[Brian Ellis]

Mainly it introduces harmonic distortion (i.e. adds something to the sound that isn't supposed to be there). This makes the sound "fuller" and "warmer" and "more pleasing" to some people.

Absolutely. But it's almost impossible to persuade people that they are wasting their money on very expensive but poor quality equipment. However, "tube" amplis have one great advantage with a surround sound set-up: you don't need central heating

I honestly believe that the audio equipment market must be one of the best money-making scams ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. I knew someone who paid a small fortune on a "special" power cable for his amplifier. He swore that the sound quality was far better than the ordinary one. I tried to ask him whether he would do a blind test with me, but he refused, pretexting that he had thrown away the old one.

The weak point of any audio chain is the loudspeakers. There again, there are enormous scams. There are very few that will match up to my well-damped Goodmans and those that do are beyond the financial reach of most people.

[FatBastard]

Scam? Scam? you say the HiFi market is a scam in a PC form ??? now thats rich.

If you spent 1000$ on a cd player in 1997, you would still have an incredible CD player today.
If you spent 1000$ on a PC in 1997 (what was it? Pentium 200 MMX ? 32 MB ram ?), what you have today is something that the forum rules prevent me from writing.
you would have to spend another 1000$ in 2000 and another 1000$ in 2003 and another in 2006.
and for what ? for the ever growing bloat ware scam large software companies are running. I mean, for me, MS office 97, which run just fine on 97 boxes, is enough. and yet I estimate I spent 5000$ over the last 10 years just so my machine at home (the wife's computer) could run the latest office (not to mention Vista) .
and don't get me started on that CPU business scam (I'll increase the clock by 5%, at the time and charge twice).

Now, I really don't know what is it about Audio gear that gets people so worked up. I really don't.
but the simple fact is that in comparison to other modern markets (computers ? Cell Phones ? Fashion? ) that you throw big $$ for piles of crap, HiFi is pretty moderate.
YOU are the one that claims that you have made a good perches in the far past (Goodman speakers) and years after you still enjoy it.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm not talking about longevity of equipment. I'm talking about making false claims that this or that pile of expensive crap improves sound quality over anything else. If that is not a scam, it is fraudulent, such as monocrystalline speaker cables. In the case of PCs, they (mostly) worked correctly and as advertised at that time and often for years afterwards. You mention cellphones. I bought mine in 1998 and it does everything I need of it today (phoning and SMS messaging). Where is the scam there? And I certainly do not replace PCs every 3 years as you suggest. I have three in this room. The oldest dates from 2000 and the youngest from last week, replacing my old 1998 vintage video editor (motherboard/processor replaced in 2002 and successively Win 98, 98SE, W2k and XP Pro).