Forum Jump:
12Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #1 of 40 Old 03-08-2018, 04:40 PM - Thread Starter
Member

ct221933's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Marantz SA-8005 Super Audio CD Player

How the Marantz SA-8005 Super Audio CD Player? I have a huge collection of CDs and would like to venture into SACD. Any feedback is much appreciated. Also Marantz just introduced the ND8006 Network CD Player with DAC. This may be a better option. I currently have the Cambridge AUdio Azur 550C. ANy input is welcome.

Amps/Pre-Amps: Job 225, Job Pre2, Hafler 915, Hafler 9303 Transnova, Onkyo Integra P304, Onkyo Integra M-504, Rotel RC-1570
CD Player: Cambridge Audio Azur 550C CD Player, Marantz CD63 SE
Speakers: Paradigm Prestige 75F, B&W CDM 1NT, Paradigm 7se Mk 3, Tannoy DC2000
ct221933 is offline
Sponsored Links
Advertisement

post #2 of 40 Old 03-08-2018, 10:08 PM
Member

Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 51
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I had the SA8005, PM8005 and NA8005 for quite some time. I really enjoyed the SA and PM8005. If you can get a good deal on the 8005 I wouldn’t hesitate! I haven’t used the ND8006, which I view as a combo of the older SA & NA, however you lose the SACD function with the ND8006 I believe. I am considering picking one up at some point to use in my theater room however.

8005 or 8006, both made in Japan. Quality product for the price and considering the older SA8005 and NA8005 would have run you $2400, the ND8006 is even more enticing with Heos built in.
ct221933 likes this.

Sony: 65A1E
Marantz: AV8805 + MM8077
Bowers & Wilkins: D3
SVS: Dual 16 Ultras
Furman: IT-REF 20i

Last edited by RaceCarDriver; 03-08-2018 at 10:14 PM.
RaceCarDriver is offline
post #3 of 40 Old 03-09-2018, 05:41 AM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
I have it. It's a fantastic sounding player for both CD and SACD. Smooth, rich, clean, well balanced, great tone quality, etc. Nothing comes close to it at its price point. The only two negatives it has are 1) it's very slow to load discs, and 2) there is no tray eject button on the remote control.


The ND8006 is probably excellent as well, but unfortunately it doesn't play SACDs. Why they didn't include that with it baffles me. I contacted Marantz recently and they said have no plans for a SA8006 SACD player and the SA8005 was discontinued at the end of 2017. If you want one, now is good time since you can get it on sale for 25% off.
ct221933 likes this.
RWetmore is online now

post #4 of 40 Old 03-10-2018, 02:04 PM
Advanced Member

Alex F.'s Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 304
My experience with the SA8005, unfortunately, was not a good one. Here is a link to my comments from last November (Post 15):

Dac and speaker pair suggestions for Arcam A39
ct221933 likes this.

Music room: McIntosh MA6500 integrated amplifier, Cary SLI-80 tube integrated amplifier, Quad 99 preamp, Quad 909 power amp, Acoustic Research AR9 loudspeakers, Yamaha CD-N500 CD player, Teac UD-503 DSD DAC, Phase Linear 8000II linear-tracking turntable.
Theater room: Panasonic 65S60 plasma television; Yamaha RX-A2020 (preamp section); Adcom GFA-5503 and GFA-5400 amplifiers; Polk LSi25, LSiC, and LSiF/X loudspeaker system; Velodyne FSR-18 servo-subwoofer.
Alex F. is online now
post #5 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 05:31 AM
Member

raceredmustang's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 107 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
I have it. It's a fantastic sounding player for both CD and SACD. Smooth, rich, clean, well balanced, great tone quality, etc. Nothing comes close to it at its price point. The only two negatives it has are 1) it's very slow to load discs, and 2) there is no tray eject button on the remote control.


The ND8006 is probably excellent as well, but unfortunately it doesn't play SACDs. Why they didn't include that with it baffles me. I contacted Marantz recently and they said have no plans for a SA8006 SACD player and the SA8005 was discontinued at the end of 2017. If you want one, now is good time since you can get it on sale for 25% off.
I also own an SA8005. Great sound, better than my Onkyo SACD. I have seen it on sale for less than $900 recently. Great deal at than price.
ct221933 likes this.

2 channel : Anthem Integrated 225, Monitor Audio Silver 8, PSA S1500, Marantz SA8005, Audioengine B1
HT: Yamaha RX-A1060, Klipsch RP-260, RP-450C, RP-160M, PSA V1500, Onkyo C-S5VL, Samsung JU7100
Office: Yamaha A-S701SL, Monitor Audio Bronze 2, SVS SB12-NSD, Marantz CD6006
raceredmustang is offline
post #6 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 05:38 AM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex F. View Post
My experience with the SA8005, unfortunately, was not a good one. Here is a link to my comments from last November (Post 15):

Dac and speaker pair suggestions for Arcam A39

Hmmmm....that's interesting. I would describe the sound of the SA8005 as anything but 'harsh and edgy', and generally, if anything, Marantz players are known for having a slightly rolled off upper midrange and highs.


I also have an Oppo BDP-103 and I would describe the sound for CD and SACD out of its analog out as being a bit harsh and edgy. The SA8005 is smoother and richer...a much more refined sound overall. Well worth more than double the price difference.
ct221933 likes this.
RWetmore is online now
post #7 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 06:58 AM - Thread Starter
Member

ct221933's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex F. View Post
My experience with the SA8005, unfortunately, was not a good one. Here is a link to my comments from last November (Post 15):

Dac and speaker pair suggestions for Arcam A39
Interesting observation for the Yamaha CD-N501 CD/Network player. I almost bought it a month ago but it is not available for sale now.

Amps/Pre-Amps: Job 225, Job Pre2, Hafler 915, Hafler 9303 Transnova, Onkyo Integra P304, Onkyo Integra M-504, Rotel RC-1570
CD Player: Cambridge Audio Azur 550C CD Player, Marantz CD63 SE
Speakers: Paradigm Prestige 75F, B&W CDM 1NT, Paradigm 7se Mk 3, Tannoy DC2000
ct221933 is offline
post #8 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 10:09 AM

LFEer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
Marantz players are known for having a slightly rolled off upper midrange and highs.
That's a myth. You won't be able to hear a difference between Marantz and Oppo shown below.

LFEer is offline
post #9 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 10:27 AM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
That's a myth.

It's not a myth and is commonly reported/mentioned.


Quote:
You won't be able to hear a difference between Marantz and Oppo shown below.

I've never heard the Marantz SA8001 or the Oppo DV-970HD, so I can't claim I hear a difference between the two or not. I don't know if I even would or not.


I do have the BDP-103 and it does sound noticeably a bit bright and edgy in the high frequencies to me compared to the Marantz SA8005, which has smoother highs that are a bit less emphasized. In my listening experience at least of the two, which I have in the same system. I also think the Marantz has better and richer tone quality.
RWetmore is online now
post #10 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 10:35 AM

LFEer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
It's not a myth and is commonly reported/mentioned.
I've seen report/mention by Modern Flat Earth Societies that the earth is flat so I guess that makes it not myth.
Quote:
I've never heard the Marantz SA8001 or the Oppo DV-970HD, so I can't claim I hear a difference between the two or not. I don't know if I even would or not.
Here is a good video for you.

Quote:
I do have the BDP-103 and it does sound noticeably a bit bright and edgy in the high frequencies to me compared to the Marantz SA8005, which has smoother highs that are a bit less emphasized. In my listening experience at least of the two, which I have in the same system. I also think the Marantz has better and richer tone quality.
In one's listening experience, yeah, all sorts of things are heard. I've had the same too in levels unmatched and none double blind setting.
LFEer is offline
post #11 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 10:37 AM - Thread Starter
Member

ct221933's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
That's a myth. You won't be able to hear a difference between Marantz and Oppo shown below.

LFEer,

Is it possible to share with us any difference between the Cambridge Azur 550C and Marantz SA-8005? Is it worth it for me to upgrade? All models I am leaning towards have dual DACs, one for each channel. I have no evidence, but intuitively I think having dual DACs should be better sonically.

Thanks

Amps/Pre-Amps: Job 225, Job Pre2, Hafler 915, Hafler 9303 Transnova, Onkyo Integra P304, Onkyo Integra M-504, Rotel RC-1570
CD Player: Cambridge Audio Azur 550C CD Player, Marantz CD63 SE
Speakers: Paradigm Prestige 75F, B&W CDM 1NT, Paradigm 7se Mk 3, Tannoy DC2000
ct221933 is offline
post #12 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 11:03 AM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
I've seen report/mention by Modern Flat Earth Societies that the earth is flat so I guess that makes it not myth.

If you want to think the claim is equivalent to or analogous to this, that's your business. I think it's ridiculous and not even remotely close to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
Here is a good video for you.

I've seen this video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
In one's listening experience, yeah, all sorts of things are heard.

Yes, of course they are. That's why we listen. To enjoy the sound and subjectively evaluate the experience of what we're listening to. Listening to hifi sound and sound systems is a subjective -- not objective experience.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
I've had the same too in levels unmatched and none double blind setting.

To establish and/or prove an audible difference at the scientific level, you of course would have to level match and do some form of blind testing. I'm not disputing this, but this is not a feasible or practical standard for us in this hobby to make decisions about equipment or how equipment sounds.
RWetmore is online now
post #13 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 11:08 AM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by ct221933 View Post
Is it possible to share with us any difference between the Cambridge Azur 550C and Marantz SA-8005? Is it worth it for me to upgrade? All models I am leaning towards have dual DACs, one for each channel. I have no evidence, but intuitively I think having dual DACs should be better sonically.

It's not necessarily 'better' sonically, but it might sound different to you or it might not. It's subjective, and ultimately you have to listen and decide for yourself if you prefer it or not (or if you even hear a difference).
RWetmore is online now
post #14 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 11:29 AM

LFEer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
If you want to think the claim is equivalent to or analogous to this, that's your business. I think it's ridiculous and not even remotely close to that.
It's ridiculous to say that Marantz players are known for having a slightly rolled off upper midrange and highs when the picture (of frequency response measurement) shows otherwise.
Quote:
Yes, of course they are. That's why we listen. To enjoy the sound and subjectively evaluate the experience of what we're listening to. Listening to hifi sound and sound systems is a subjective -- not objective experience.
But posting claims online isn't same as listening to your audio system and enjoying it in your place.

Quote:
To establish and/or prove an audible difference at the scientific level, you of course would have to level match and do some form of blind testing. I'm not disputing this, but this is not a feasible or practical standard for us in this hobby to make decisions about equipment or how equipment sounds.
You can certainly research those documented results and learn from them. Why reinvent the wheel, so to speak.
LFEer is offline
post #15 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 11:30 AM

LFEer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by ct221933 View Post
LFEer,

Is it possible to share with us any difference between the Cambridge Azur 550C and Marantz SA-8005? Is it worth it for me to upgrade? All models I am leaning towards have dual DACs, one for each channel. I have no evidence, but intuitively I think having dual DACs should be better sonically.

Thanks
Watch that video and it will set you straight on sonic properties of contemporary disc players.
LFEer is offline
post #16 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 12:26 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
It's ridiculous to say that Marantz players are known for having a slightly rolled off upper midrange and highs when the picture (of frequency response measurement) shows otherwise.

OK, so maybe not upper midrange (however that's defined), but they're well known for often having slightly rolled off highs compared to other players. There isn't much measurable difference in the two specific players you cite, but I haven't heard either one. Perhaps they sound similar or the same, or the highs at least sound the same.


I do believe the rolled off highs do show up in measurements I've seen, and indeed they should if they're audible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
But posting claims online isn't same as listening to your audio system and enjoying it in your place.

Sure it is if I'm posting my subjective listening experiences and/or preferences, and I'm not putting forth my experiences as proof at the scientific level of what I'm hearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
You can certainly research those documented results and learn from them. Why reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

Because we're not talking about differences that don't physically exist in space and time (in fact, we're not even talking about differences outside the audible frequency range, but well within it). What we're talking about here is whether a particular listener can and/or is actually perceiving/hearing the difference in their specific place with their particular system and set up, in its specific and unique acoustical environment, in the way they normally listen, in long term listening.

Such documented 'scientific' testing is basically never done in these conditions because it's not feasible to do, and thus one can't reasonably eliminate via these methods all the conditions the internal models (in the brain) a particular listener may have developed and finely tuned themselves to hear in their normal listening environment.

Now, does this mean everyone, including myself, is definitely hearing what they claim to perceive? And are reporting on blogs like this? No, of course it doesn't, and I'm skeptical of a lot of claims myself, but it's a moot point if one perceives an audible difference, especially in long term listening, and the purpose of listening (and this hobby) is to subjectively evaluate the sound and the perceived sonic experience when listening.

Last edited by RWetmore; 03-11-2018 at 12:45 PM.
RWetmore is online now
post #17 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 02:03 PM

LFEer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
OK, so maybe not upper midrange (however that's defined), but they're well known for often having slightly rolled off highs compared to other players. There isn't much measurable difference in the two specific players you cite, but I haven't heard either one. Perhaps they sound similar or the same, or the highs at least sound the same.

I do believe the rolled off highs do show up in measurements I've seen, and indeed they should if they're audible.
I've never seen or heard of Marantz disc player with high audio frequency roll-off to audible level.
Quote:
Sure it is if I'm posting my subjective listening experiences and/or preferences, and I'm not putting forth my experiences as proof at the scientific level of what I'm hearing.




Because we're not talking about differences that don't physically exist in space and time (in fact, we're not even talking about differences outside the audible frequency range, but well within it). What we're talking about here is whether a particular listener can and/or is actually perceiving/hearing the difference in their specific place with their particular system and set up, in its specific and unique acoustical environment, in the way they normally listen, in long term listening.

Such documented 'scientific' testing is basically never done in these conditions because it's not feasible to do, and thus one can't reasonably eliminate via these methods all the conditions the internal models (in the brain) a particular listener may have developed and finely tuned themselves to hear in their normal listening environment.

Now, does this mean everyone, including myself, is definitely hearing what they claim to perceive? And are reporting on blogs like this? No, of course it doesn't, and I'm skeptical of a lot of claims myself, but it's a moot point if one perceives an audible difference, especially in long term listening, and the purpose of listening (and this hobby) is to subjectively evaluate the sound and the perceived sonic experience when listening.
I and other members have been explaining why people who do comparisons like yours would perceive audible differences between DACs, preamps and amps. One of the most common cause being the level mismatch.
LFEer is offline
post #18 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 03:14 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NH
Posts: 2,742
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 507 Post(s)
Liked: 2573
Thumbs up

RWetmore: I would ignore this guy. He brings up the same subject time and again. Same graphs, charts and video's. Eventually the Moderator will get fed up and close the thread. Plenty of people w/actual experience w/Marantz and similar players to give you some real world experience.
Scotth3886 likes this.
Class A is offline
post #19 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 03:50 PM
Advanced Member

Alex F.'s Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Class A View Post
RWetmore: I would ignore this guy. He brings up the same subject time and again. Same graphs, charts and video's. Eventually the Moderator will get fed up and close the thread. Plenty of people w/actual experience w/Marantz and similar players to give you some real world experience.
The graphs are not even about the components being discussed.
Class A, RWetmore and ct221933 like this.

Music room: McIntosh MA6500 integrated amplifier, Cary SLI-80 tube integrated amplifier, Quad 99 preamp, Quad 909 power amp, Acoustic Research AR9 loudspeakers, Yamaha CD-N500 CD player, Teac UD-503 DSD DAC, Phase Linear 8000II linear-tracking turntable.
Theater room: Panasonic 65S60 plasma television; Yamaha RX-A2020 (preamp section); Adcom GFA-5503 and GFA-5400 amplifiers; Polk LSi25, LSiC, and LSiF/X loudspeaker system; Velodyne FSR-18 servo-subwoofer.
Alex F. is online now
post #20 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 04:25 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
I and other members have been explaining why people who do comparisons like yours would perceive audible differences between DACs, preamps and amps. One of the most common cause being the level mismatch.

I have not described how I made the comparisons. They were not short term A-B type comparisons, but overall listening experience/perception over long periods of time via normal listening, i.e not in the state of mind of trying to critically decipher differences between players in short listening spurts. And yes, I'm well aware that a level mismatch can easily be mis-perceived as a sound signature difference. In short term A-B type testing especially, this can lead to a false positive of the listener thinking they're hearing a sonic signature difference when they're really just hearing the difference in level output between the players.


It definitely seemed like the Oppo's output level was a little below the Marantz SA8005. Roughly about -1dB, and I recognized that as a likely level difference immediately. I had another Marantz, the SA8003, and it was obviously outputting at a much higher level...like probably about +3db compared to the SA8005. So I'm well aware that rather large differences in level output between players is common place.


In long term, normal listening this generally doesn't come into play because one just puts the volume where they like it when they're listening. Of course, to establish a difference at the scientific level, you always would have to level match (or at least randomize the initial volume level) to eliminate the possibility of the listener simply hearing a volume difference and not a difference in sound signature.

Last edited by RWetmore; 03-11-2018 at 04:55 PM.
RWetmore is online now
post #21 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 04:43 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Class A View Post
RWetmore: I would ignore this guy. He brings up the same subject time and again. Same graphs, charts and video's.

I know, but they need to be taken on from time to time. IMO, it seems to be some kind of "everything sounds the same or it's defective" audio secular religion or cult masquerading as science, where the apparent members of the cult feel puffed up going around pooh-poohing any and all the sonic differences people are claiming to be hearing between different amps and CD/SACD players.


Maybe some of the differences are indeed imagined and/or are at least greatly exaggerated by some over zealous enthusiasts, and like I say I'm skeptical of a lot of claims made by listeners myself; but rather than just expressing their doubts, they have to insist all of these experiences have been fully debunked by science when they haven't been.

Last edited by RWetmore; 03-11-2018 at 04:51 PM.
RWetmore is online now
post #22 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 05:01 PM

LFEer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
I have not described how I made the comparisons. They were not short term A-B type comparisons, but overall listening experience/perception over long periods of time via normal listening, i.e not in the state of mind of trying to critically decipher differences between players in short listening spurts. And yes, I'm well aware that a level mismatch can easily be mis-perceived as a sound signature difference. In short term A-B type testing especially, this can lead to a false positive of the listener thinking they're hearing a sonic signature difference when they're really just hearing the difference in level output between the players.


It definitely seemed like the Oppo's output level was a little below the Marantz SA8005. Roughly about -1dB, and I recognized that as a likely level difference immediately. I had another Marantz, the SA8003, and it was obviously outputting at a much higher level...like probably about +3db compared to the SA8005. So I'm well aware that rather large differences in level output between players is common place.
Your comparison method wasn't bias controlled, I know. I've done plenty of those too and came up with all sorts of audible difference conclusions. They are meaningless. Only meaningful thing such comparison produces is self entertainment.
Quote:
In long term, normal listening this generally doesn't come into play because one just puts the volume where they like it when they're listening. Of course, to establish a difference at the scientific level, you always would have to level match (or at least randomize the initial volume level) to eliminate the possibility of the listener simply hearing a volume difference and not a difference in sound signature.
Explanation on that has been given by multiple posters in the following link.The Revolutionary New Marantz SA-10 Player
LFEer is offline
post #23 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 05:05 PM

LFEer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
I know, but they need to be taken on from time to time. IMO, it seems to be some kind of "everything sounds the same or it's defective" audio secular religion or cult masquerading as science, where the apparent members of the cult feel puffed up going around pooh-poohing any and all the sonic differences people are claiming to be hearing between different amps and CD/SACD players.
Secular religion thing you've claimed has been debunked in the following link. The Revolutionary New Marantz SA-10 Player

Quote:
Maybe some of the differences are indeed imagined and/or are at least greatly exaggerated by some over zealous enthusiasts, and like I say I'm skeptical of a lot of claims made by listeners myself; but rather than just expressing their doubts, they have to insist all of these experiences have been fully debunked by science when they haven't been.
They have been debunked. Remember the explanation on human's ability to run 100 mph in the following link. The Revolutionary New Marantz SA-10 Player
LFEer is offline
post #24 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 05:16 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
Your comparison method wasn't bias controlled,

I never claimed it was, dude. It's not feasible to set up a proper double blind, bias controlled, experiment over the time period listening I took to come to my conclusion of the sound differences between the players.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
I know. I've done plenty of those too and came up with all sorts of audible difference conclusions. They are meaningless.

Yes, to you personally and by your own individual assessment, especially if the perceived differences are not re-appearing in your normal, long term listening. To many of us, they do.

Last edited by RWetmore; 03-11-2018 at 05:34 PM.
RWetmore is online now
post #25 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 06:46 PM

LFEer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
I never claimed it was, dude.
I knew that when I posted # 17 despite your expressed doubt in the first sentence of post # 20. Such comparison is very common in electronic audio community and sadly many people think that's how evidence is gathered.

Quote:
It's not feasible to set up a proper double blind, bias controlled, experiment over the time period listening I took to come to my conclusion of the sound differences between the players.
Maybe to you personally. That doesn't mean it's universal to everyone else.

Quote:
especially if the perceived differences are not re-appearing in your normal, long term listening. To many of us, they do.
Who said level matched DBT isn't normal long term listening? Praising this so called "long term listening" as if it's some kind of revealing method is what you would call secular religion. There is no proof that such listening revealed the audible difference that would have been missed in DBT by doing short term listening.
LFEer is offline
post #26 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 07:29 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
Maybe to you personally. That doesn't mean it's universal to everyone else.

Never claimed or thought it was. Many may not hear any significant difference between those two specific players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
Who said level matched DBT isn't normal long term listening?

I did, because it isn't generally done. BTW, I'm defining 'long term listening' as at least a period several days per piece of equipment (amp, CD player, etc.), and more like a few weeks or even months.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
Praising this so called "long term listening" as if it's some kind of revealing method is what you would call secular religion. There is no proof that such listening revealed the audible difference that would have been missed in DBT by doing short term listening.

That's because it's not feasible to reliably set up such long term listening DBTs, as I've pointed out. Nor is it possible, as I pointed out, to reasonably eliminate all internal models (in the brain) any particular listener may have tuned themselves to hear in their own unique listening environment, even in typical short term DBTs. Moreover, none of this matters if one is not actually perceiving a difference in normal, long term listening.


You yourself have done tests where you at least thought you heard a difference between a CD player or amp, right? But then when you listened and compared them blind under the test conditions, you couldn't hear a difference, right? But did the perceived difference you though you heard re-appear in your normal, long term listening? If the answer is no, as I presume, that's awfully convenient FOR YOU.


In the case of John Atkinson and the amplifiers and in him hearing a large difference in long term listening even though he couldn't hear a difference in short term blind listening, for example, you're not actually advocating that he not do what he did and keep the amp where he hated and was uncomfortable with the sound of his system and no longer enjoyed listening to it, are you? That would be pretty stupid for him or anyone to do, right?
RWetmore is online now
post #27 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 07:46 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

RWetmore's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 3,954
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 451 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Frankly, just the fact that what we're talking about here is whether some particular person or listener (or listeners), in some specific environment, under some specific conditions (which there are an infinite number of) is or is not perceiving a difference that is easily measurable, i.e. definitely physically exists in space and time, and is well within the audible frequency range -- I have a problem with. I just don't see the practical value of it, outside things like lossy compression, where you're trying to determine what part of the audio is the least audibly important to listeners so it can be eliminated with minimal perceived audible degradation.

It would be one thing if someone was claiming to hear something that cannot even be verified to physically exist in space and time, i.e. can't be measured or identified, or was outside the audible frequency range even. But this isn't what we're dealing with here, thus I'm not sure I see any value in this. Especially again, since hifi system listening and sound evaluation is ultimately a subjective assessment and experience -- not an objective one, from person to person.

Last edited by RWetmore; 03-11-2018 at 08:02 PM.
RWetmore is online now
post #28 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 09:10 PM
online-shashki Forum Special Member

thehun's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kommiefornia
Posts: 9,204
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 883 Post(s)
Liked: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
I know, but they need to be taken on from time to time. IMO, it seems to be some kind of "everything sounds the same or it's defective" audio secular religion or cult masquerading as science, [

Ahh correction, the actual cult is called audiophilia and has zero scientific merit though indeed they try to masquerade it as something else.

Quote:
where the apparent members of the cult feel puffed up going around pooh-poohing any and all the sonic differences people are claiming to be hearing between different amps and CD/SACD players.
I agree some people are like that from the "objectivists " camp but not many.
Quote:
Maybe some of the differences are indeed imagined and/or are at least greatly exaggerated by some over zealous enthusiasts, and like I say I'm skeptical of a lot of claims made by listeners myself; but rather than just expressing their doubts, they have to insist all of these experiences have been fully debunked by science when they haven't been.
well the vast majority of such claims don't even warrant scientific debunking since they are ridiculous on their own face if people only understood the basic science behind sound and audio in general.

De sagittis Hungarorum libera nos, Domine!
Snowflakes may retreat to their safe places.
Ex diversis cogitationibus ex cute color.

The Hun
thehun is offline
post #29 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 10:15 PM
Advanced Member

Alex F.'s Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 892
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
In one's listening experience, yeah, all sorts of things are heard. I've had the same too in levels unmatched and none double blind setting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
Your comparison method wasn't bias controlled, I know. I've done plenty of those too and came up with all sorts of audible difference conclusions.
So you say you have "done plenty" of subjective and level-matched bias-controlled DBT comparisons of CD players. Which specific players?

Music room: McIntosh MA6500 integrated amplifier, Cary SLI-80 tube integrated amplifier, Quad 99 preamp, Quad 909 power amp, Acoustic Research AR9 loudspeakers, Yamaha CD-N500 CD player, Teac UD-503 DSD DAC, Phase Linear 8000II linear-tracking turntable.
Theater room: Panasonic 65S60 plasma television; Yamaha RX-A2020 (preamp section); Adcom GFA-5503 and GFA-5400 amplifiers; Polk LSi25, LSiC, and LSiF/X loudspeaker system; Velodyne FSR-18 servo-subwoofer.
Alex F. is online now
post #30 of 40 Old 03-11-2018, 10:35 PM

LFEer's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
BTW, I'm defining 'long term listening' as at least a period several days per piece of equipment (amp, CD player, etc.), and more like a few weeks or even months.
So what? Where you can apply long term listening or not has been explained in the following link.

Quote:
That's because it's not feasible to reliably set up such long term listening DBTs, as I've pointed out. Nor is it possible, as I pointed out, to reasonably eliminate all internal models (in the brain) any particular listener may have tuned themselves to hear in their own unique listening environment, even in typical short term DBTs. Moreover, none of this matters if one is not actually perceiving a difference in normal, long term listening.

You yourself have done tests where you at least thought you heard a difference between a CD player or amp, right? But then when you listened and compared them blind under the test conditions, you couldn't hear a difference, right? But did the perceived difference you though you heard re-appear in your normal, long term listening? If the answer is no, as I presume, that's awfully convenient FOR YOU.
You don't understand the idea of bias control via level matched DBT. There is no need for long term listening when comparing components side by side to see if there is audible difference.

Quote:
In the case of John Atkinson and the amplifiers and in him hearing a large difference in long term listening even though he couldn't hear a difference in short term blind listening, for example, you're not actually advocating that he not do what he did and keep the amp where he hated and was uncomfortable with the sound of his system and no longer enjoyed listening to it, are you? That would be pretty stupid for him or anyone to do, right?
Why he does/says what he does, has been explained already in the following link. It's as if you didn't even read that thread or have forgotten completely.

Last edited by LFEer; 03-11-2018 at 10:39 PM.
LFEer is offline
Sponsored Links
Advertisement

Reply CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports



Forum Jump:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off