As a few of you who have read my earlier post know I have been pondering as to whether or not to replace my cd player for redbook cd playback since my old Sony (so old I can't even remember the model number) died over a year ago. I have been using my Panasonic DVD player (CP72) for playing cd's as well as dvd's since that time, feeding the signal via optical cable to my Outlaw 990 pre/pro and letting it do the digital to analog conversion. Things sounded really nice but I kept wondering if a high quality dedicated cd player would make a difference. Well a couple of weeks ago I came upon a very nice deal on an Arcam CD192 so I went for it.
The Arcam is a very nice unit, what I think most people would consider audiophile quality however, at the lower end of that spectrum even though it lists for I believe $1,599. Long story short, I'm glad I bought it. I think the best way to describe the difference is "smoothness." It takes the rough edges off of the music and adds depth. I never really understood some of those expressions until now. I've found listening less fatiguing, especially with headphone listening. However, the differences are subtle. The Outlaw 990 does a nice job and I am very happy with it, but the Arcam is definitely a step up when I listen to cd's, especially well mastered and recorded ones. It will not make bad recordings sound good, nor should it, but it makes the good stuff sound sweet.
Anyway, I don't know if upgrading my dvd player would have done the same thing, but I am convinced that there is definitely a difference in the sound quality when upgrading the source player.
By the way, the store where I purchased the Arcam is a very high end store with obviously some very knowledgeable staff. They recommended that once I got the unit home I put a cd in it, hit the repeat button, and let it play for at least 3 to 4 days straight before I did any listening. And then, never turn the player off. They suggested that it takes about 24 hours for the player to properly warm up so that it is at it's sonic best so I should just leave it on as they do with every player they have in the store. I thought that was interesting.
Glad you like your new player.
As for leaving it on, I'd sure like to find some quantitative data to support all of this belief in warm-up times.
Quote:
Anyway, I don't know if upgrading my dvd player would have done the same thing, but I am convinced that there is definitely a difference in the sound quality when upgrading the source player.
By the way, the store where I purchased the Arcam is a very high end store with obviously some very knowledgeable staff. They recommended that once I got the unit home I put a cd in it, hit the repeat button, and let it play for at least 3 to 4 days straight before I did any listening. And then, never turn the player off. They suggested that it takes about 24 hours for the player to properly warm up so that it is at it's sonic best so I should just leave it on as they do with every player they have in the store. I thought that was interesting.
No comment.
Actually the comments have already been made, about 50,000 times already.
The tagline says all that needs be said.
Just curious, how was the new player connected ? Did you still use an optical connection or was the Arcam handling the D/A duties ?
Like I said, I know that there is all kinds of debate out there about a lot of this stuff. The guy who sold the player to me is actually one of the owners of this very high end but small scale business. He's also blind, and as a result I'm sure has a very discerning ear, probably much more than any of us. I'm sure he hears things that we wouldn't notice at all.
Part of the problem is that some would like to make what makes better sound completely objective based solely on scientific facts and measurements. I think listening to music is much more subjective than that, and what sounds "better" to one person may not mean anything to another. It's just not that simple. I'm betting my wife wouldn't notice any difference (nor would she care). I didn't mean to stir up the pot; just wanted to share my experience for what it's worth, which probably isn't much.
I certainly didn't think that you were stirring up the pot.
As an engineer, I am really trying to understand if there are any physical reasons for reported higher audio quality when systems are "warmed up".
Bridgman,
I'm letting the DAC's(two for each channel)do the conversion in the player and sending it to the pre/pro via analog. Then bypassing all of the electronics in the pre/pro, which the Outlaw 990 allows you to do, as the signal goes to the amp. Taking advantage of the excellent electronic components (at least according to reviews) in the Arcam.
Mojo,
I wish I could give you an explanation as well but I am far from being knowledgeable about the technical side of this stuff. I just know what sounds good to me. I'm betting that any discernable difference has got to be very subtle, but the gentleman who sold it to me was very direct about it being a good thing to do. Maybe it was "snake oil" but I figure it can't hurt. I never shut my computer off either.
As an example of the difference I noticed with the higher quality dedicated cd player, I was listening to the recent Neil Young release "Live at Massey Hall." It was recorded in the early seventies and was a concert that he did solo. He accompanies himself either on acoustic guitar or piano depending on the song. I noticed when listening to the headphones especially, that I could always tell when he was about to play piano before the song began because I could hear the piano bench "squeak" as he shifted on it before beginning to play. I had not heard that before. It's that kind of detail that I really enjoy. It gives me a better sense of what I might be hearing if I were there sitting next to the stage.
Quote:
I noticed when listening to the headphones especially, that I could always tell when he was about to play piano before the song began because I could hear the piano bench "squeak" as he shifted on it before beginning to play.
That's very interesting! I too am in the market for a CD/DVD player and have often wondered if there are noticeable differences between a $300 unit and a $1500 unit.
Remember... my opinion..
I'd venture to say that the piano bench "sqeak" would also be heard with the old cd equipment. You're listening harder, IMO.
That's just it, I wasn't listening "harder;" I was actually looking at a magazine and just enjoying listening to what I think is a great Neil Young cd that is well engineered. The "sqeak" distracted me into listening further to figure out what it was as I have listened to the cd several times before and never noticed it.
But I guess this debate will rage on forever. As I said, everybody's different and we hear things differently. My wife would be perfectly satisfied listening to a boom box, and thinks I'm nuts. That's why there are so many different equipment manufacturers out there, and why some people buy Fords and others buy Chevy's, both swearing that their car is the best.
And so it goes.
If you are happy with your purchase then it was money well spent.
Agreed... if you're happy with your purchase, then that's what counts. It certainly isn't my goal to convince you otherwise. I'm just presenting my point of view.
Enjoy!
korkster,
I know EXACTLY where you are coming from, when you said: "subtle differences" regarding the sound quality.
I believe you heard, what you heard........but all that, the sales guys said about "properly warming up", and "playing a cd for 3-4 days.....before listening" makes no sense. Your new cd player may sound better....but that's not why.
Enjoy.
I believe you guys, I just don't understand that there are so many reviews, written by people who I would assume know what they're talking about (maybe that's the problem), that talk about "break-in" and "warm-up." If it doesn't matter, why are there so many reviewers out there that say it does make a difference? I'm so confused? Are they all wrong, and if so, why are they then the so called "experts" writing for audiophile type magazines?
I read one review on the Arcam CD192 specifically, that talked about how the unit they tested sounded so different after "breaking-in" for 70+ hours. And there are cd's out there that were developed especially for the purpose of "breaking-in" equipment, cables, etc.? Is it all "snake oil?"
All we need is to have a double-blind listening test of a unit fresh off of the assembly line and one that's had this break-in period. Does someone have a link to an article with this kind of test in it?
The theory I seem to see is that people are simply psychologically breaking them in, which seems reasonable to me.
I am slowly learning that the huge bank of electrolytic power supply capacitors in these units do "break in" and it is in the order of tens of hours and maybe even more. Does it make a practical difference to the ear? The jury is still out on that one.