Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners DAC: computer Soundcard vs CD Player?

In reply to:

---

So what you guys are saying is Saturn is hearing things and his very nice CD player sounds the same as his computer?

---

Danm if thats the case I could have saved about $1000.00 and just used my computer as a source .

Sony C222ES and a Msb Link Dac III

In reply to:

---

Saturn, that extra "detail and crispness" that you hear, how can you be so sure those are the missing part of the original recording? you probably wouldn't want to hear this but perhaps you could achieve the same result by simply turning up the treble? LOL

---

Ummmm nope.

In reply to:

---

but does your MF sound 20x better than the M-Audio 7.1

---

Ummm yup.

In reply to:

---

Personally I'm not going to sink couple hundred bucks on something that I can achieve with merely $69~$89.

---

sure...go back to sleep.

When you do wake up....go to your local shop that carries other nice gear. Bring in your PC. Let them hook it up ..compare. Fortunately I have both at home. Both have been SPL to the same level. Both have been demoed by a few people...and all came out to the same conclusion.

If you havent tried it out like I have ... then all you say is heresay.

In reply to:

---

I agree, aheh...If I'd dropped a big chunk of money on a CD Player like that, I probably would try really hard to convince myself that it is a far superior unit too!! :-)

---

I do not try to convince myself. I actually switch a lot of gear almost every six months. I have the luxury of testing and reselling gear that often due to my contacts & networking. I had a Mark Levinson CD player which is 3 times the price and the MF is equally as good. Unless you have tried yourself your just full of dung.

Well, what we need here is a digital recorder on the other end of the digital cable (TOS or SPDIF) to find out what that CD-P is doing to change the sound and to do a compare against the original recording... have to see just how many errors (isn't that what signal processing you can't turn off really is? Even cheap receivers have a pure stereo or direct setting, they'd never force you to listen to a processed signal!) this player is introducing.

Bren R.

What you dont trust your ears?

If you are ever in Toronto...as with Chess I offer my place and gear for any of the scientific tests. You would be surprised that there is a change...however minute.

100 audio forum posters can't be wrong. You did it, you convinced me. You've convinced me that expensive CD-Ps relay something other than the original bitstream to the receiver. I am now convinced that expensive consumer CD-Ps fail miserably at their intended job - to read a CD and pass the information to a receiver verbatim, to allow the various settings on a receiver to shape the sound (or not shape the sound in the case of "direct" settings).

Now they need to market these flawed players based on different flavours - a boost to the 40-100Hz (open E to open G string) range for bassists, a constant wah-wah effect for guitarists, a digital cowbell added to every song for drum fanatics.

Bren R.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo !!!

Not the cowbell !!

Bren:

I can not explain why there is a change...all I am saying there is change...My ears perceive this change as good. I am not here to convince you or anyone. I am here to relate my findings. You and many others explain this through science. But have you actually done any of these tests using some of the high end gear. If you want scientific test and I said earlier if you and or chess are ever in Toronto I would definitely like to do some of those tests as you mentioned to prove or disprove me.

You and the other experts words are no different than mine...its all heresay unless it can quantified and qualified.

In reply to:

---

experts words are no different than mine

---

Saturn,
I'm with you on this one. I have heard very good CD players and some although not all do it better. Who the heck knows why but at the end of the day, I'm just glad they exist.

I like this article, so I thought I would share a little. Doesn't answer one dam question in this thread but it's still a good read. The last paragraph is by far and away the best! Take the word objectivists and put in scientist.

Robert Harley Stereophile:

In reply to:

---

What high-end products do that mass-market products mainly do not is to produce a powerful intimacy with the music. The mediocre product never passes the threshold from good sound to creating magic in the listening room. Why not? Because in their development, the designers didn't listen, tweak the design, and listen some more. Other projects needed their attention. The circuit measured well, sounded acceptable---why beat it to death? The mid-fi designer may enjoy music, but he lacks the obsession that drives the high-end designer to push the limits of performance just a little further.

Conversely, the caring designer continues his quest until he is absolutely sure that no more improvements can be made. His mind is at peace only when the product satisfies his high expectations of how it should convey the music. At the last stage, he will often include an expensive part that adds to the raw materials cost, even though he knows the retail price won't increase. The additional cost will come off the bottom line, but the designer can't bear to think of the product performing below its potential. He knows how much better the music will sound to dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of music lovers. And that matters to him.
High end isn't a prestigious brand name, or the type of store in which it is sold, or cost, or faceplate thickness, or a positive review. It is the relationship between the designer and his product---a relationship that produces a similar relationship between the user and the product. High end can be an inexpensive product, provided that the designer's goal was to best convey the music. Indeed, a modestly-priced product that squeezes the last drop of musical performance from the parts cost is more high-end than an elaborate design that isn't fully realized. Again, the difference is in the designer's attitude: how much he cares about music determines how good the product is within the cost limitations. These qualities can exist within an individual designer in a mid-fi company; we wouldn't call the resulting product high-end, but maybe it will be a little less mid-fi.

The antithesis of high end is the designer who purposefully makes a product---such as an inexpensive loudspeaker---that will impress during a brief showroom demo, knowing full well that it will disappoint musically in the home. Similarly, the mid-fi ethic may call for making the component look good on paper, without regard to how it sounds. Another technique, anathema to the high end, is overly compromising a design. Rather than use a better part that makes the product far more musically satisfying but slightly increases the retail price, the designer cuts corners and compromises musicality to meet a "price point" determined by the marketing department. All designers must be price-conscious, but this last technique is definitely not part of the high-end ethos.

The term "musicality"---often associated with high-end components---bears discussion. The word has become a lightning rod for criticism by audio "objectivists" and the mainstream press because they erroneously believe that musicality implies some sort of euphonic coloration. Moreover, musicality can't be measured, quantified, or communicated by linear symbols, thus making its existence questionable to some who haven't experienced it.

---

That last sentance is so true!!!!!!!!!!!