View Full Version : Naim Listing One CD Player - Sign Of The Times ?
Ninanina
25-06-2018, 00:56
Just been looking at the products Naim is listing on their site
They are now only listing just one cd player, the one that sat at the bottom of their range, the CD5 SI
I guess that can only mean that they are about to release some new players or they are just not going to supply them anymore, I guess because a lot of people are now streaming everything
I think it's a shame if Naim are only going to supply one cd player as I think their players are pretty good. I own the CD5XS and a long time ago owned the CDX2, both of which are very good players
I'm surprised they are still offering any cd players. The world has moved on, possibly not for the better.
Only Naim CD I have heard is the one Alan Firebottle has, not sure which model that is. It's okay but not worth two grand or whatever it was they were asking for them when they were new.
Yeah, basically it costs a LOT of money to design and build a *really* good CDP player, simply because they are such mechanical beasts. The engineering involved to properly address all the necessary issues is expensive, and the market for such today is simply no longer there, as you say with many folks now streaming music instead.
That's one of the reasons why it pays to go vintage with a CDP, and obtain what would've been a top player in its day, from one of the Japanese majors.
Quite simply because you're getting something that's been properly engineered, from an era when such was the norm, but much cheaper than originally would've been the case, after someone else has absorbed the initial costs - and which with a little attention, should you want to go there, could be updated and made into something special that will last a lifetime, likely outliving CD itself.
Naim CDPs (I've owned a few, including the top models) were always about getting the absolute most from the format, at a given price point, particularly in relation to optimising power supplies (a crucial and also expensive part of achieving high-quality CD replay) not simply churning out any old plastic DVD-ROM and nondescript DAC in a box, which is probably why they've all but given it up. Linn did it years ago.
Plus, the commercial reality is that there's more money to be made from charging someone £4k, or whatever, for a high-end network player, than there would be for supplying a high-end CDP at the same price, so being the good business people that they are, Naim have realigned their product range accordingly to reflect that situation.
I reckon that within the next 5 years no proper hi-fi manufacturer will be producing CD players, and both the players and CD itself, as a music format, will be dead as a dodo within the next 10 years. So if some of the dinosaurs here want access to new music in future, they better get with the times and start embracing streaming!;)
Marco.
walpurgis
25-06-2018, 08:35
if some of the dinosaurs here want access to new music in future, they better get with the times and start embracing streaming!;)
Marco.
This dinosaur has near enough all the music he wants..................on CD. So I'll be sticking with that format as main source for the foreseeable future. :)
This dinosaur has near enough all the music he wants..................on CD. So I'll be sticking with that format as main source for the foreseeable future. :)
That's a key point, and fine, but not (like me) if you're constantly seeking out interesting and new types of music, which eventually will be download or Internet streaming only.
That, amigo, is the (digital) future. I think that vinyl will be around for a considerable time yet, so that's the format to embrace, to obtain some new music, if you have no love for computers.
Plus, I hope you've stockpiled a few transport mechs (and/or other key components), for your chosen CDP, as sooner or later you'll need them, when things wear out;)
Marco.
Like Geoff, I have no interest in streaming. Like Bev, I am sad to see only a budget Naim offering. Like Marco, I take pleasure in the fact there are high end vintage players out there that will sound better than the current budget Naim and also outlive me ;)
Oh, and then there’s the gazillions of CDs out there selling at boot sales at 5 for a Pound!
walpurgis
25-06-2018, 08:50
I hope you've stockpiled a few transport mechs (and/or other key components), for your chosen CDP, as sooner or later you'll need them, when things wear out;)
Marco.
Three CD players used as transports and one dedicated transport, two DACs, two jitter busters and a valve buffer are enough.
Like Geoff, I have no interest in streaming. Like Bev, I am sad to see only a budget Naim offering. Like Marco, I take pleasure in the fact there are high end vintage players out there that will sound better than the current budget Naim and also outlive me ;)
Oh, and then there’s the gazillions of CDs out there selling at boot sales at 5 for a Pound!
Indeed, Andy, but NOT of newly produced music... That's my point. Each to his or her own, but even though I've got enough music on CD to 'last me a lifetime' (around 3500 discs), it's all stuff I've heard before, and eventually that would bore me.
I dip into my collection now and then, and always enjoy playing old favourites, but I like to expand and evolve my musical tastes, not stagnate into a boring creature of habit, listening to the 'same old, same old', which is what happens when you don't explore anything new - and for that, quite simply, you need to embrace streaming.
At the very least, any *true* music lover should have access to playing music on their system, via something like Spotify or Tidal, and then (if necessary) buy some of it on vinyl or CD, or simply just enjoy streaming it that way, as the quality can be surprisingly good:)
In this day and age, with so many of the technological devices (TVs, media boxes, etc) we use connected to the Internet, there's no excuse not to explore the world of music streaming.
Marco.
Three CD players used as transports and one dedicated transport, two DACs, two jitter busters and a valve buffer are enough.
Fair do's... At least you've thought about it and planned for the future:)
Marco.
I'm reliably told that Naim separates have stagnated in sales in the UK at least and now, it's all the streaming gear that sells up and down the country by and large.
got 4 spare units at moment, plus 2 in use. none are dedicated cd players tho.
I'm reliably told that Naim separates have stagnated in sales in the UK at least and now, it's all the streaming gear that sells up and down the country by and large.
I'm not surprised, Dave. It simply reflects the current reality. If you go to any hi-fi show now (and I include the recent one at Cranage Hall), you never see a CD player being used. For replaying digital music, it's ALWAYS via some form of network device.
Plenty of T/Ts (and also reel-to-reel players) in evidence now at shows however, as when done properly, discerning audiophiles and music lovers appreciate how good they can sound, so that's why exhibitors will often successfully combine the best of old and new technology - and we should be doing exactly the same at home:)
Marco.
walpurgis
25-06-2018, 09:16
I still own the Meridian 507 CD player I bought new about sixteen years ago and it's still a fine sounding source. Usually employed as a transport these days.
Ninanina
25-06-2018, 23:44
Like Geoff, I have no interest in streaming. Like Bev, I am sad to see only a budget Naim offering. Like Marco, I take pleasure in the fact there are high end vintage players out there that will sound better than the current budget Naim and also outlive me ;)
Oh, and then there’s the gazillions of CDs out there selling at boot sales at 5 for a Pound!
Exactly Andy, I also have no interest in streaming everything but I will probably set up my Apple TV for some Spotify again at some point
I spoke to Naim about them only offering the "budget" model and they said something like: "this one player does Naim justice"... well I have to disagree that the Naim CD5Si is representative of what a good Naim cd player can do
However Naim did also say: "We still service/repair and stock parts for products that are over 20 years old" .... so I am hoping that my CD5XS has a fair bit of life left in it
I certainly don't consider myself a dinosaur for wanting to carry on with CD as my main/only source :lol:
Exactly Andy, I also have no interest in streaming everything...
You don't need to stream everything, Bev. I stream sometimes, play CDs the other, and vinyl the next. It's good to have CHOICE!:)
Plus, as I said before, new music will eventually only be released on download or vinyl, so your CD player will be no use for playing anything other than the discs you already have.
So in ten years time, when you hear a song on the radio you really like, you'll just need to resign yourself to never being able to play it a home........ UNLESS you embrace streaming;)
Marco.
Ninanina
26-06-2018, 00:17
You don't need to stream everything, Bev. I stream sometimes, play CDs the other, and vinyl the next. It's good to have CHOICE!:)
Plus, as I said before, new music will eventually only be released on download or vinyl, so your CD player will be no use for playing anything other than the discs you already have.
So in ten years time, when you hear a song on the radio you really like, you'll just need to resign yourself to never being able to play it a home........ UNLESS you embrace streaming;)
Marco.
You are probably right Marco.... ;)
Just think it's good to keep as many options open as possible:)
Marco.
You don't need to stream everything, Bev. I stream sometimes, play CDs the other, and vinyl the next. It's good to have CHOICE!:)
Plus, as I said before, new music will eventually only be released on download or vinyl, so your CD player will be no use for playing anything other than the discs you already have.
So in ten years time, when you hear a song on the radio you really like, you'll just need to resign yourself to never being able to play it a home........ UNLESS you embrace streaming;)
Marco.
As always you make some great points! And as usual I agree.
I see CD following the same path vinyl did so many years ago. When CD came out, manufactures ceased making turntables almost completely! But over the years, a few high end turntable companies remained, for those who refused to give up their extensive vinyl collections. While new CD sales are in the ditch, there are literally billions of existing CD’s in the world that aren’t going away. So while most makers will cease making CD players, I suspect there will be some specialty companies making them for the next 50 years.
But from the high end manufacture’s standpoint, the CD is an antiquated device, riddled with problems that playing back audio files fixes. If you want to pursue better reproduction, you must move forward and away from disc playback. New networked players, whether playing from a file server in your home or off the internet, is the way forward, to push the envelope of reproduction farther than it is now, you must eliminate the mechanical aspect of the machine. That is where pursuit of higher resolution has taken us, the natural path to better things.
Plus, even at lower resolutions, as the world economy has evolved, it’s much better to rent something than it is to sell it. Charging a monthly fee is better than a one time sale.
Russell
montesquieu
26-06-2018, 09:43
I don't know about rock, pop, jazz but there is still a thriving scene for new classical CD releases and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Interestingly in contrast to the rock/pop market there are almost no new recording classical LP releases, though there are any number of old recordings being recycled, usually old warhorse versions of the big symphonies and concerti - this of course is not where the bulk of the interest in new releases is, a lot of which is smaller-scale stuff, or works by modern or neglected older composers.
I'm not worried about longevity of CD playback, there are still some decent CD drives being manufactured, though vintage is where the bargains are, especially if (like me) you are happy with Red Book. Turntables never entirely went away though the whole market was reshaped and that's what happening now for CD I suspect.
Streaming, it seems to me, is ultimately a less engaging way to interact with music and it won't satisfy everyone. Indeed it's my view that interest in LP as a format is precisely a reaction to the blue arsed fly (aka playlist) style of listening encouraged by digital formats - physical interaction with carefully chosen, individually 'owned' (and often premium priced) music that you then listen to for a whole side at least (20 minutes) is the polar opposite of the all you can eat (but not very satisfying) buffet offered by streaming. CD actually falls between stools here but in many ways is closer to the LP experience.
But from the high end manufacture’s standpoint, the CD is an antiquated device, riddled with problems that playing back audio files fixes. If you want to pursue better reproduction, you must move forward and away from disc playback. New networked players, whether playing from a file server in your home or off the internet, is the way forward, to push the envelope of reproduction farther than it is now, you must eliminate the mechanical aspect of the machine. That is where pursuit of higher resolution has taken us, the natural path to better things.
I keep seeing people saying this but I've yet to see anyone present a convincing case as to why it might be true?
Experience tells me there are definitely sonic advantages to be gained in digital replay, by removing the mechanical interface of a CD transport mechanism, and streaming the stored musical data instead via network devices.
Remember that all a CD is, is a carrier for data embedded onto it, and all we want is to retrieve that data and reproduce the music contained therein as accurately as possible. Due to advances now in technology, a plastic disc, or a CD player and its associated mechanics, is no longer needed to facilitate that process; in fact it's simply an unnecessary (and often detrimental) added complication.
However, as ever in audio, there is never a 'free lunch', and so introducing computers into the audio reproduction chain, such as is necessary in order to process said musical data, causes its own problems, and which need to be addressed, for genuine high-fidelity sound to be obtained.
Therefore, in order to hear the improvements a good streaming set up can provide over a CD player, as with anything else, the set up of such has to be right, otherwise it will be no better, or perhaps worse, than a CD player - and of course there are CD players and CD players.
In that respect, I've heard streaming systems, playing an identical album to a CD player sound worse than the CD player used, and vice versa, so nothing here is 'set in stone'.
However, all else being equal, including the DAC used (and I've heard this numerous times with my own ears), the best network devices/streaming systems *will* outperform even the best CDPs, simply because any CD player is ultimately governed by the limitations of its transport mechanism/mechancial interface and error-correction circuitry.
You will only discover that, however, if you have all the necessary 'bits' at your disposal, in order to make some meaningful comparisons, in your own system, so until then disbelieve/pooh-pooh it if you wish, but the reality will be obvious when, or if, you hear what I've described for yourself:)
Marco.
Not a question of disbelieving, if you understand how digital audio works you realise it makes absolutely no difference what storage system you are reading the file off.
That's why I'm asking for someone to clarify this in technical terms, not 'If you listen you'll hear it' since that is a completely unreliable test for a whole host of reasons.
Not a question of disbelieving, if you understand how digital audio works you realise it makes absolutely no difference what storage system you are reading the file off.
Yet, that completely contradicts what (probably many 1000s) of others and I have heard, who've carried out some proper comparisons, so perhaps this is another area in audio where we still don't fully understand what's going on, and where measurements/'technical facts' don't appear to tell the full story?:)
You might *think* you know how digital audio works, or any other aspect of audio, but like me, you're no expert, simply an enthusiast amateur/hi-fi enthusiast on a continual learning curve!;)
That's why I'm asking for someone to clarify this in technical terms, not 'If you listen you'll hear it' since that is a completely unreliable test for a whole host of reasons.
You can 'clarify in technical terms' until the cows come home, but it won't disprove what others and I can clearly hear, simply because I don't believe that the subject is yet fully understood [and by that I mean the intricacies applied to audio in the digital domain when reproducing music], certainly at least by anyone here.
Technical terms appear to disprove the notion that cables make a difference, yet most of us with a decent pair of ears, not blinkered by some scientific agenda, can clearly hear otherwise, therefore such terms don't definitively prove anything. They simply act as a guide as to what we've learned so far on a specific subject.
In that respect, I've never understood why some folk need to use them as a set of hard and fast rules 'always to be obeyed'.
Marco.
Yet, that completely contradicts what (probably many 1000s) of others and I have heard, who've carried out some proper comparisons, .
Exactly what comparison have you carried out? the only valid comparison would be to take a cd, copy it onto hard drive, then play it back from there and compare with the same cd played on a cd player/transport. But you need the whole digital to analogue process to be the same otherwise you are introducing uncontrolled variables.
The only difference in a valid comparison can be the way in which the file is stored and read. if you've done such a comparison I'd like to read about it. If you haven't done such a comparison then you haven't done anything.
Even if such a comparison were done it would still only be a subjective 'I liked this better' result. Again, meaningless as I might prefer the sound from the other source.
So you would also need to measure the signal at some point in the chain to see if there are any real differences between the two and if there are any degradations in the CD player source compared to the hard drive source.
If you can find some then there might be some justification for claiming that the reading a file from a hard drive is superior to reading it from an optical disc. I'd be happy to put money on it that no such difference would be found, since there is no reason for there to be any difference.
Exactly what comparison have you carried out?
When I had the RPi upstairs in my main system, supplied with music from my hard-drives, and connected to my Sony DAC, I compared the sound of CDs ripped to those drives, versus the sound of the physical CDs themselves, played via my Sony CD transport, which was also connected to the same Sony DAC, and on almost every occasion, the streamed rips sounded better than the physical CDs.
However, I'd add not by a large margin!
Since I've been using my system downstairs, with the RPi, supplied by the same hard-drives, and my Sony Blu-ray player, connected to my Sony AV amp (with built-in DAC, which feeds both the RPi and Blu-ray player) and Celestion speakers, I've carried out the same comparison, namely comparing the file of a ripped CD album (on hard drive) with the same track on the physical CD itself, played through the transport on the Blu-ray player - and the result was identical to that obtained in the other test I mentioned.
Furthermore, I've carried out the same test in other systems, belonging to friends with different equipment, but where it was still possible to keep the necessary variables the same (always the same DAC used to reproduce either the ripped file or a track from a physical CD), and the results were the same: 9 times out of 10, the streamed (ripped) file sounded best. No idea why it didn't happen 10 times out of 10, but such is the quirky nature of audio!
Therefore, you can understand why I'm convinced something is happening that the 'technicalities' you believe prove all that needs proving in this matter, simply don't properly explain.
Even if such a comparison were done it would still only be a subjective 'I liked this better' result. Again, meaningless as I might prefer the sound from the other source.
How is it meaningless? You can prefer what you prefer, but what either of us hears is NEVER "meaningless"; it acts as valid evidence to be considered and analysed, just as much as any specs or measurements. That's the problem with an objectivist mindset; its rigid thinking often dismisses too much that in reality deserves proper consideration!:rolleyes:
So you would also need to measure the signal at some point in the chain to see if there are any real differences between the two and if there are any degradations in the CD player source compared to the hard drive source.
Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the results of those measurements would be conclusive, as you would need to know both *exactly* WHAT to measure and HOW to measure it, not to mention using the correct apparatus, *specifically* designed for that job, in order to really know what was going on.
Not an easy task, unless you're happy with taking a 'broad brush' approach to matters, by not doing things properly and coming to the wrong conclusions, and by making '2+2=5', as indeed is the case so often in these debates, guilty by those whose argument is based solely on a technical standpoint.
If you can find some then there might be some justification for claiming that the reading a file from a hard drive is superior to reading it from an optical disc. I'd be happy to put money on it that no such difference would be found, since there is no reason for there to be any difference.
...that others or you currently know of and can explain!;)
Next time you're round, we'll carry out the same comparisons (as outlined above), and you can judge things for yourself, that is if ultimately you're willing to trust your ears more than any technical terms:ner:
Marco.
as indeed is the case so often in these debates, guilty from those whose argument is based solely on a technical standpoint.
.
The claim I was questioning was: the CD is an antiquated device, riddled with problems that playing back audio files fixes. If you want to pursue better reproduction, you must move forward and away from disc playback.
Which sounds like a technical claim to me. So I was asking what technical data there is to support this assertion. If the claim had been 'I prefer playback from a computer hard drive to that from an optical disc' then no problem, just someone's preference.
Trusting your ears is all very well, you like or don't like. But if you want to give technical explainations for why you do or don't like then some supporting technical evidence is essential, as I'm sure you'll agree.
The claim I was questioning was: the CD is an antiquated device, riddled with problems that playing back audio files fixes. If you want to pursue better reproduction, you must move forward and away from disc playback.
Who said that? Certainly not me... My assertion was that, all else being equal, a streamed file should sound better, through any given DAC, than the same track played identically from CD, which is quite different.
Trusting your ears is all very well, you like or don't like. But if you want to give technical explainations for why you do or don't like then some supporting technical evidence is essential, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Indeed, but I wasn't giving any technical explanations; simply making claims/offering an opinion based on my listening experience. In that respect, I can say I believe that any CD player is ultimately governed by the limitations of its transport mechanism, simply because that's what my ears tell me, although I can't prove it:)
If that wasn't the case, then what else explains the results I obtained, when carrying out those comparisons [on three separate occasions in different systems], which I've just outlined?
Marco.
Who said that? Certainly not me... My assertion was that, all else being equal, a streamed file should sound better, through any given DAC, than the same track played identically from a CD, which is quite different.
Indeed, but I wasn't giving any technical explanations; simply making claims/offering an opinion based on my listening experience. In that respect, I can say I believe that any CD player is governed by the limitations of its transport mechanism, simply because that's what my ears tell me, although I can't prove it:)
If that wasn't the case, then what else explains the results I obtained, when carrying out the comparisons, which I've just outlined?
Marco.
It was Russell who made the claim and I quoted it in my original post which you replied to.
I'm fine with anyone preferring one method to the other. That's not in question. What I'm pointing out is that claiming your preference is due to the transport mech or the optical system or whatever other reason has absolutely no validity unless backed up by some sort of technical enquiry. Otherwise it is far too easy to end up drawing the wrong conclusions and dissapearing down a rabbit hole of expensive nonsense.
Incidentally have you considered the mechanism that the hard drive uses to read the data? Do you have any rationale as to why that mechanism is superior to an optical drive? Is there any rationale to thinking the optical drive might be superior?
There is a big problem with drawing technical conclusions based purely on sighted listening tests. Sighted tests are useful only for determining what you personally prefer.
And I will grant you that a sighted listening test is usually sufficient to decided whether to buy something or not.
Ironically it is only on subjective forums where 'the measurements don't matter' that people seem so keen to extrapolate all sorts of technical conclusions from simply listening.
What I'm pointing out is that claiming your preference is due to the transport mech or the optical system or whatever other reason has absolutely no validity unless backed up by some sort of technical enquiry. Otherwise it is far too easy to end up drawing the wrong conclusions and dissapearing down a rabbit hole of expensive nonsense.
In terms of the first bit, well it has as much 'validity' as any other subjective opinion or experience expressed.
It's an observation/hypothesis, Martin, and something I believe is true, based on my experience in the area concerned, and which I'm perfectly entitled to put forward. It's what a forum is for: throwing ideas out into the open for others to consider, in order to promote discussion, and that can be done without the existence of a 'technical enquiry'.
As for the second bit, as I've said before, but which you seem to be ignoring/failing to consider, is that who's to say that the results of any technical enquiry would be conclusive? Who's to say that all that needed testing/measuring, in order to prove or disprove the existence of what's being claimed, will have been tested and measured?
Therefore, you're making the fundamental mistake of believing that the results of any such technical enquiry would be a 'done deal'. The fact is, it'd likely be no more a 'done deal' than my claims are to the contrary.
Incidentally have you considered the mechanism that the hard drive uses to read the data? Do you have any rationale as to why that mechanism is superior to an optical drive? Is there any rationale to thinking the optical drive might be superior?
I'm by no means an expert in this area, so someone more knowledgeable would need to comment, but I believe that SSD drives, with having no moving parts, solves the problems of HDD, in that respect, so that may have some bearing on matters.
Regardless though, all I can do is report what I hear and offer some sort of explanation. It's what inquisitive and intelligent people do. It doesn't mean that the reason I've proffered for the difference I've heard is right, but it does mean I can hear the difference.
There is a big problem with drawing technical conclusions based purely on sighted listening tests. Sighted tests are useful only for determining what you personally prefer.
And I will grant you that a sighted listening test is usually sufficient to decided whether to buy something or not.
Aw Gawd, you're not playing the old blind-test card?:doh: I'm not even going there, as you know my feelings on that matter! Did you need a blind test to tell you which system at Cranage Hall you liked best, or were you happy to trust your ears?;)
Likewise, I don't need a blind test to confirm what I think sounds better between a streamed music file and a CD.
Ironically it is only on subjective forums where 'the measurements don't matter' that people seem so keen to extrapolate all sorts of technical conclusions from simply listening.
Well, as I've already said, it's simply about throwing ideas out into the open for others to discuss, and that approach will always be promoted here, over subjectivists being expected to shut up, simply because a hypothesis they've put forward to explain something they've heard, may not be technically provable.
That, muchacho, is the way AoS is, and always will be!! :cool:
Marco.
Beobloke
26-06-2018, 16:34
A few years back, David Price ran a demo at the Bristol show, demonstrating the differences between digital technologies. As I recall, he played two or three pieces of music in low resolution MP3, high resolution MP3, red book CD and high resolution lossless formats.
I sat in on three of these demos and when he asked two pertinent questions at the end, everyone could hear the difference between all four but, when asked which one they preferred, the majority of all three sessions' participants went for CD!
And the moral of that story is?:hmm:
Marco.
I
Well, as I've already said, it's simply about throwing ideas out into the open for others to discuss, and that approach will always be promoted here, over subjectivists being expected to shut up, simply because a hypothesis they've put forward to explain something they've heard may not be technically provable.
That, muchacho, is the way AoS is, and always will be!! :cool:
.
As I said previously it was not you who made the statement so I don't know why you are making it all about you (or me for that matter). I'm all for people speculating about the reasons for what they hear or think they hear. It's when they make a statement of fact with no foundation that I object.
And nowhere in my post does it mention blind testing. But in answer to your question do you see me making any statements of fact about the system I preferred at Cranage? No. I just said I preferred it. If I said that the reason it sounded so good was because it used expensive cable lifters I'd expect to be taken to task. And rightly so.
As I said previously it was not you who made the statement so I don't know why you are making it all about you (or me for that matter). I'm all for people speculating about the reasons for what they hear or think they hear. It's when they make a statement of fact with no foundation that I object.
Fair enough, but I was simply challenging some of the points you made, which don't reflect my personal experience. And as far as I can see, no-one has stated any facts here, including Russell, simply expressed their opinion and what they believe to be true.
You, as well as anyone here, should know that anything written on a forum should always be read as 'in the humble opinion' of the author, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
And nowhere in my post does it mention blind testing.
So what were you implying here then:
There is a big problem with drawing technical conclusions based purely on sighted listening tests. Sighted tests are useful only for determining what you personally prefer.
To me, that reads as: 'You can only propose a technical explanation for what you've heard, if what you've heard has been proven by blind testing'. If not, what did you mean instead, and what purpose was served by bringing "sighted" into the equation?
If you'd simply wrote: 'There is a big problem with drawing technical conclusions based purely on listening tests. Listening tests are useful only for determining what you personally prefer', it would've been different, and I'd have said nothing. The addition of "sighted" completely changes the context, which is why I responded as I did:)
But in answer to your question do you see me making any statements of fact about the system I preferred at Cranage? No. I just said I preferred it.
Again fair enough, but neither were Russell or I making any statements of fact about steamed files vs. CD playback. As I've said already, we were simply expressing an opinion.
In future, try superimposing 'IMHO' onto everyone's posts, unless they actually make a statement of fact, by stating: 'It is a fact that, blah, blah....";)
Marco.
Again fair enough, but neither were Russell or I making any statements of fact about steamed files vs. CD playback. As I've said already, we were simply expressing an opinion.
In future, try superimposing 'IMHO' onto everyone's posts, unless they actually make a statement of fact, by saying 'It is a fact that, blah, blah....";)
Marco.
Not meaning to have a go at you Russell or anything btw. I just don't like unsupported speculations and assumptions about what are to most of us are obscure and highly technical matters, it doesn't get us any further forward. If we are going to talk about what is technically better then lets have some links to facts and figures to back it up. The two are inseparable. A subjectivist forum should be principally about our subjective impressions, I think. No need for IMHO then.
Not meaning to have a go at you Russell or anything btw. I just don't like unsupported speculations and assumptions about what are to most of us are obscure and highly technical matters, it doesn't get us any further forward. If we are going to talk about what is technically better then lets have some links to facts and figures to back it up. The two are inseparable. A subjectivist forum should be principally about our subjective impressions, I think. No need for IMHO then.
No worries, I wasn't taking it as you having a go, and I'm sure Russell wasn't either. Just our usual robust style of debating, whenever you and I discuss subjects we're passionate about.
We'll have to agree to disagree on "unsupported speculations", as if I want to, I'll always put forward, technically or otherwise, what I think *might* explain what I'm hearing, and I have no problem with anyone else doing the same, or indeed being told I'm wrong (if that's the case) by someone qualified to do so.
For me, as long as the word 'fact' isn't used, when expressing what is purely a subjective opinion, then folks can write what they like, and others can (politely) challenge it!:cool:
Marco.
I remember being told that one reason why a computer based audio file *might* be better is the error checking both in creating said file in the first place and also in the playing back of this file. I've also been told that fixing one 'issue' shows up others, but over the years I think most of not all have been dealt with now and even an iPhone makes a superb source (I think worelessly if streaming although I've never done this personally).
CD replay typically is on the fly and just maybe, reading of errors, insignificant or not, may just have an effect, I don't know. I now play music whatever the source and only worry if it's vinyl to be honest. If we move, a lot of the surplus gear will have to go, but my CD's, LP's and 12" singles are coming with me! Hard drive or cloud storage is so impersonal and playing records is something I remember fondly from toddlerhood, so I can't change sixty plus years of conditioning now..
Okay enough now. The simple problem is this: Technically better does not necessarily means sounds better. 'Sounds better' is an individual impression and we all know that our individual impressions can differ with regard to this, at least occasionally. And when you take psycho-acoustics into account, technically worse can be the reason it 'sounds better'.
The problem arises when we equate 'sounds better' with 'technically better'. If you prefer the sound from your streamer-DAC to that from your cd player it does not automatically mean it is technically better! It may be but the two things are completely unconnected.
What is happening here is that we are saying 'well my streaming system sounds better than my cd player so it must be technically better.' Then speculating on technical reasons why that might be (it's the read system, the storage medium, the error correction) without any technical basis or support whatsoever. I can't be the only one who finds that ridiculous?
,
Okay enough now.
Lol - who promoted you to having the last word?;) This debate is becoming pointlessly circular, Martin, but if you insist....:doh:
The simple problem is this: Technically better does not necessarily means sounds better. 'Sounds better' is an individual impression and we all know that our individual impressions can differ with regard to this, at least occasionally. And when you take psycho-acoustics into account, technically worse can be the reason it 'sounds better'.
I have no problem whatsoever with that statement. However, you're turning this into a technical argument, not me, and putting words into my mouth that I haven't used.
The problem arises when we equate 'sounds better' with 'technically better'. If you prefer the sound from your streamer-DAC to that from your cd player it does not automatically mean it is technically better! It may be but the two things are completely unconnected.
Case in point. I never said it was "automatically technically better". Those are YOUR words, not mine!
I simply proffered a possible explanation as to why I've found that, all else being equal, a streamed piece of music, TO ME, not a fact, but based on the comparisons I've conducted to date, sounds better than the same piece of music played on a CD player, both using the same DAC. And I'm sorry mate, but no matter how much it irks you, I'm entitled to that opinion.
What is happening here is that we are saying 'well my streaming system sounds better than my cd player so it must be technically better.'
No, that's not what WE are saying at all; that's what YOU are saying!
What you also seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is if you're not technically informed on a specific matter, then don't attempt to discuss it, or don't attempt to assign a technical reason to anything you've subjectively heard, unless you know what you're talking about...
Well no, I won't do that, simply because one of the ways we learn (especially folk like me, who dislike learning from books, and prefer doing so from practical experience) is to say what we think might be happening, put it out there for consideration, as it were, and stand to be corrected, or otherwise, by someone who knows.
*THAT* is how I learn, and have always learned about almost anything.
Therefore, in that respect, if someone suitably informed comes here and tells me that any differences I've heard, with respect to the issue we're discussing, is not down to the effects of a transport mechanism, and can show me evidence which proves it, then I'll happily accept I'm wrong, and that something else instead is responsible for creating the very REAL differences I've heard in that area.
But I will not have the discussion shut down simply because you think there should be the presence of some form of technical proof to support my argument.
You either accept it or you don't, which is fine by me, but you won't stop me from expressing my legitimate non-technical opinion, or anyone else from doing the same, on ANY matter relating to audio, as it goes fundamentally against the staunchly subjectivist nature of AoS.
To be quite honest, I'm surprised you've reacted this way and have such a bee in your bonnet about this. However, I really think we should leave it there now, as we're never going to agree :cool:
Marco.
We'll have to remember to discuss this further next time we meet up. Sorry for de-railing the thread everyone.
What is happening here is that we are saying 'well my streaming system sounds better than my cd player so it must be technically better.' Then speculating on technical reasons why that might be (it's the read system, the storage medium, the error correction) without any technical basis or support whatsoever. I can't be the only one who finds that ridiculous?
No. An analogy might be someone with no technical knowledge of cars test-driving two different models, and much preferring one over the other, then theorising as to the technical reasons for their preference, which might be completely wrong. Personal preferences don't need justification, still less any technical explanations.
No. An analogy might be someone with no technical knowledge of cars test-driving two different models, and much preferring one over the other, then theorising as to the technical reasons for their preference, which might be completely wrong.
Exactly. I'm not saying I'm right, but I'm entitled to theorise!
Marco.
We'll have to remember to discuss this further next time we meet up. Sorry for de-railing the thread everyone.
No problem, mate. It's probably best something we discuss face to face:)
Marco.
I confess I was only speaking technically, or theoretically. I personally have done no such comparisons.
But I was thinking back to all of the super high end CD player reviews I’ve read, and how John Atkins would do the technical reviews. And the way the CD player works, they spend a fortune on a super stable mechanism, with all manner of damping to reduce motor vibrations, and a huge motor to control RPM’s to the millionth of a rotation. And it was a challenge to time it all right so the bit stream was being retrieved at the speed needed to match the clock on the DAC. So, wobble in the axel, motor noise, and speed errors were creating jitter, and miss reads.
As with a completely solid state playback, in theory, could be retrieved from a memory card, buffered and released at the exact clock speed for the DAC, (even a hard drive has a buffer solid state memory circuit, it’s not feeding straight from the disc), and if nothing else, you could get some super accurate data feed rates for the DAC clock. Plus, you’ve reached a superior level of data stream without all that expensive hardware.
I’ve always questioned, why not feed the data from the CD into a buffer? And feed it to the DAC from there? And maybe some CD players do? But, all those from back when I used to read every word of those reviews, did not.
I’ve often thought it would be best to build a player that used standard SD memory cards, eliminating a lot of the complications of playing back files from a computer, stored on hard drives, converted to a dozen codecs, and sent down USB or whatever cable? And they do make such decks! But they are more for use by radio stations, etc, not really intended for the high end market. They could even sell prerecorded SD cards, although the album covers would be tiny.
And very true this doesn’t prove that solid state playback sounds better, it just solves several problems technically. And could possibly lower costs?
Russell
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180627/c7ced6ed78354165e6c17b798ada0ec3.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180627/0026e3149d3141ea4853521b04b9dd2d.jpg
Russell
But I was thinking back to all of the super high end CD player reviews I’ve read, and how John Atkins would do the technical reviews. And the way the CD player works, they spend a fortune on a super stable mechanism, with all manner of damping to reduce motor vibrations, and a huge motor to control RPM’s to the millionth of a rotation. And it was a challenge to time it all right so the bit stream was being retrieved at the speed needed to match the clock on the DAC. So, wobble in the axel, motor noise, and speed errors were creating jitter, and miss reads.
Oh NOoooooooooooooooo... Don't mention the 'J' word to Martin!!:nono::nono::eek::eek: :door::door:
:lol:;)
But yes, all of the stuff you've mentioned is precisely what I was thinking of, and quite simply, they wouldn't have needed to go to those lengths if there weren't genuine issues to address, and which streaming (or the Network recorders you've listed) rather neatly solves.
Since this thread was originally about Naim CDPs, I remember when I was a big Naim user, back in the late 90s/early 2000s, and how Naim went to great lengths, installing manual top-loading mechanisms on their players (as automatic front-loading ones were thought to introduce vibration), with pucks to clamp CDs in place and leaf-spring suspensions (a la CDS/CDSII), to counter microphonics, as they knew (based on extensive R&D) that vibration was the enemy of high-quality CD replay, and so took steps to help address it.
And the effects were not imagined, as I heard the difference that clearly made for myself, from having used various players in the Naim range, and it was only when the CDS was released, which had the aforementioned design features, that for me CD really 'matured' and sounded like a good turntable, but still with the undeniable sonic attributes of digital replay, making pretty much any other CDP it was compared with then sound compromised and a-musical.
Plus, it wasn't just Naim who were doing that sort of thing, but if you were to open up my vintage Sony CDP, or Martin's, you'd see various steps having been taken to address the effects of vibration and isolate the CD itself from such. And that was back in the 80s! So it was recognised as a problem almost from day one. It's why metal transport mechs back then were used in the top CDPs, because they were less microphonic than plastic ones. I could go on...
There were all sorts of steps taken to ensure that transport mechanisms could function at their maximum capability and read the information on discs as accurately as possible, none of which is necessary now with network players/file-based audio, and I'm convinced that's why I can hear the detrimental effect of the mechanical aspects of any CD player, when comparing it with the best streaming set ups.
Can I prove it? No. It's simply what I believe is true, based on considerable experience.
Marco.
Frazeur1
27-06-2018, 09:47
Marco, the Naim players from that time were damn good weren't they, and would still be a wonderful thing to have. I owned the CDI for awhile, and then traded up to CDS, enjoyed many years with it. Probably some of the best gear to come out of Naim really as far as electronics go in my opinion.
I also liked what you responded to Bev about, all the various mediums, whatever they may be, analog, digital, whatever, they all have their place and bring about the goods in one way or another. Indeed, why limit oneself if you can...
The question remains, if Naim is going to limit their line to a single player, why didn’t they keep their top of the line player?
Perhaps this model is the best selling? Or meets a price point? Quite often corporate decisions don’t rely on logic?
Russell
Might be that is the only one they are confident that they can still get the parts for? Most of them will be bought in from the far east as with all CD players from UK manufacturers.
nonuffin
02-07-2018, 07:57
Might be that is the only one they are confident that they can still get the parts for?
Maybe that Naim have the good sense to avoid using slot loading mechs in their players. They really are a bag of shite.
Beobloke
02-07-2018, 12:08
And the moral of that story is?:hmm:
Marco.
I've absolutely no idea! [emoji3]
FWIW, though, not only did I think the CD sounded best in those demos, I think I've only heard one streaming setup that really captivated me (ironically, given how this thread started - it was a Naim streamer.). Other than that, streaming always sounds technically very precise but very sterile and soulless. As someone once said to me about a certain item of hi-fi equipment which shall remain nameless - "It's like it takes the music and then magically manages to remove all the music from it".
I am obviously set up for streaming, for reviewing purposes, but other than that I never use it as I can discern no advantage in sound quality terms and it's such a bloody faff. Sticking a CD or LP (or cassette...) on, or cueing up something from Spotify is a damn sight easier.
Dragging the thread back to its start, I'm gutted that the Naim CD-555 is no more. I always loved that thing - not only for the sound (I still maintain it's the best CD player I have heard to date) but mainly for the utterly delightful loading lid action!
FWIW, though, not only did I think the CD sounded best in those demos, I think I've only heard one streaming setup that really captivated me (ironically, given how this thread started - it was a Naim streamer.). Other than that, streaming always sounds technically very precise but very sterile and soulless. As someone once said to me about a certain item of hi-fi equipment which shall remain nameless - "It's like it takes the music and then magically manages to remove all the music from it".
Then you must not be doing it right, most likely in terms of using SMPS, on your computer-related gear, as opposed to the fully-regulated linear variety, which in my experience is what can give flie-based audio its "soulless" quality, and which I do agree is a problem until suitably rectified. You have to successfully combat the noise.
Since I removed all cheapo SMPS units from my streaming set up, and powered anything computer-related from a separate mains block, to the components making up my system, it simply sounds as 'musical' as the music itself allows!
It's also important to use a non-clinical sounding DAC, something with a bit of 'meat on the bone', to eliminate any likelihood of sterility. Also, always stream music direct from your own sources/hard-drives (using minimum FLAC-quality files), not from an external source, such as Spotify, or worse YouTube.
Do all that, and steamed music NEVER sounds soulless!:nono:
Dragging the thread back to its start, I'm gutted that the Naim CD-555 is no more. I always loved that thing - not only for the sound (I still maintain it's the best CD player I have heard to date) but mainly for the utterly delightful loading lid action!
Yeah, I completely agree... Crazily expensive, but undoubtedly state-of-the-art engineering in a player, and the pinnacle of how to extract music most accurately from the humble compact disc!:cool:
Marco.
Spectral Morn
02-07-2018, 15:45
The question remains, if Naim is going to limit their line to a single player, why didn’t they keep their top of the line player?
Perhaps this model is the best selling? Or meets a price point? Quite often corporate decisions don’t rely on logic?
Russell
I think the answer is incresingly audio companies are finding it harder to find quality drive mechanisms. Esoteric/Teac no longer supply their drives to second party companies (so I have read) so it may be the case that the stocks of other drives are increasingly not available and smaller companies lack the resources to develop their own or modify other drives, DVD/Blu Ray.
For a long while now computers, laptops etc are not coming with drives, with many more switching to streaming movies the supply of DVD/Blu Ray drives are drying up, at a guess, so less options to use to play back physical optical discs. This I think has led to some companies, the smaller ones stopping making CD players. In away we are back to the early days of CD, where it was easier to make a DAC, these days its a DAC, streamer, or file player, not a physical disc player. Of course sales of CDs are down and maybe that is a factor as well, or both, a perfect storm.
The thing I find most disconcerting is the abandoning of wanting to own physical items, to have control over those, be able to collect, pass on etc (same to a degree with books) so increasingly people are paying money for nothing, nothing to show, no collection, nothing. To my mind this is the emperors new clothes.
Re the sound quality, I am still a CD, SACD enthusiast, in my set up, files don't sound as good and I don't stream except the likes of You Tube.
Maybe that Naim have the good sense to avoid using slot loading mechs in their players. They really are a bag of shite.
I hate them too. Wouldn’t touch a player with one. I don’t like the way they make you handle the disk and I don’t trust them to avoid scratching my CDs either. Look and feel crap too.
nonuffin
02-07-2018, 18:19
I hate them too. Wouldn’t touch a player with one. I don’t like the way they make you handle the disk and I don’t trust them to avoid scratching my CDs either. Look and feel crap too.
Auditioned two players with slot loading drives and both of them wouldn't unload the disc. One of them accepted a disc and said "NO DISC" in the display without playing at all, the other one would play a disc but not eject. With car CD players being so unreliable for that same reason, you would think the manufacturers would be as wary of them as we are.
You get good and bad ones Had a few that marked discs but the o e in my car is excellent and not marked any in all the years Ive used it.
I think the answer is incresingly audio companies are finding it harder to find quality drive mechanisms. Esoteric/Teac no longer supply their drives to second party companies (so I have read) so it may be the case that the stocks of other drives are increasingly not available and smaller companies lack the resources to develop their own or modify other drives, DVD/Blu Ray.
For a long while now computers, laptops etc are not coming with drives, with many more switching to streaming movies the supply of DVD/Blu Ray drives are drying up, at a guess, so less options to use to play back physical optical discs. This I think has led to some companies, the smaller ones stopping making CD players. In away we are back to the early days of CD, where it was easier to make a DAC, these days its a DAC, streamer, or file player, not a physical disc player. Of course sales of CDs are down and maybe that is a factor as well, or both, a perfect storm.
The thing I find most disconcerting is the abandoning of wanting to own physical items, to have control over those, be able to collect, pass on etc (same to a degree with books) so increasingly people are paying money for nothing, nothing to show, no collection, nothing. To my mind this is the emperors new clothes.
Re the sound quality, I am still a CD, SACD enthusiast, in my set up, files don't sound as good and I don't stream except the likes of You Tube.
All very good points. And I’m sure you’re right, the falling off of CD sales must relate to the falling off of player sales.
And I agree with you on the new way of “selling” music, record companies have been whining for years about people copying their albums on to cassettes for use in their cars, calling it piracy, etc. so, this new method of renting the music solves it all nicely. They get paid per play, and while the record companies and artists are making less money then ever, they asked for it. And it is not lost on me that if an artist should voice an opinion that the corporate big wigs don’t agree with, their music can be squashed out of existence with the push of a button! If your music voices a political view that is not popular, no one will ever hear it. Big brother is bearing down on us. Or perhaps even worse, they will allow it, and watch who all listens to it, and mark you as an enemy of the state? Much like today, the cops run child pornography sites, and then go bust anyone looking at it. No one opposes busting child pervs, but who is next? It sets a bad precedence. But I am way off topic!
I hear that some 7% of vinyl buyers don’t even own a record player. They buy them for the album covers, and just to own it. Many new “hi end”, vinyls include a free download. Why exactly? I have talked to my daughter and son in law, to be sure they take my vinyl collection and keep it in good condition after I pass, my son in law is a vinyl convert. I really shouldn’t care what happens to it once I’m gone, but somehow I do. My CD collection is not as extensive but I don’t want it thrown out either.
I figure I’ll wind up streaming sooner or later, but for now my vinyl playback is still top dog. And CD is very close second, and gets more use than the record player, for convenience. Perhaps if I start streaming I’ll forget about both of them? Convenience will outweigh performance? Unless of course streaming starts sounding better than the others? I still will never part with my collection.
Russell
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.