I have recently read through some posts here on new technology versus older technology. What I saw was a lot of technical info supporting the theory that we have not come as far as some might think. Now technical data is certainly good for those of you that live for it, but I prefer the results side of the technical principles. THE SOUND.
What really disturbs me is the fact that almost all of the publications point out the fact that the digital realm has gained more improvements faster than any other field in audio history. They also state that today's cd players in a given price range, say $700 for example, are far superior than $700 players of even 5 to 10 years ago.
I myself, am more of an audio enthusiast than a hard core audiophile. I would rather enjoy very good sound over criticizing all the details. However, once you step into the "audio world" it's easy to want some of the audiophile traits that the better equipment offers.
I own a cd changer from the late 90's that I purchased in 2000. Adcom GCD 700. Without the ability to audition all of the players around the same retail as the Adcom, I try to be savvy about doing extensive homework before replacing with anything that SHOULD be better. I have replaced much of my older equipment by using this method and so far it has worked out great. Yet, I am hearing things that contradict with what I respectfully read from the professional critics.
Am I to believe that my Adcom is as good as a new model Rotel changer of the same price? I am sure that there are better performing single disc players at that retail, but how about cheaper? What about the convenience of not having to get up every 15-20 minutes to swap discs? Was the Adcom one of the last decent changers made? Am I going to be stuck with modifying components instead of buying a good one that is already designed that way? Is the hobby we all devote so much time to really at a stand still and over-hyped as some have insinuated?
I guess no one wants to touch this question. Is it because there are no recommendations? Is it because I am a fairly new poster? Or did the subject that I brought up, somehow question other peoples credibility?
I am not trying to be smart or rude in any way. So forgive me if it sounds that way. I really just wanted some straight forward recommendations for a possible upgrade. Unless of course it's not really justified.
It was an interesting set of questions. r.bowen. And I cannot see how anyone could have taken offence.
I think there is no simple answer. No general trend. That was my response. Perhaps others thought the same, and wanted to leave comments to those with definite opinions.
It all depends....
"the digital realm has gained more improvements faster than any other field in audio history"
Over the same period of time, probably yes. Nothing fundamental has happened to speakers, amplifiers etc. since CD was introduced, in 1983. However these other items went through major changes in their time.
One point of view is that "improvements" have generally been concerned with convenience more than sound quality. That can be applied to the whole business of digital recording and playback.
"I really just wanted some straight forward recommendations for a possible upgrade".
Whether a new Rotel cd changer, or any other of equivalent price, will sound better than an Adcom GCD 700 is something people might have opinions on.
"Unless of course it's not really justified"
I don't think anyone else can know that. And sound quality and convenience are different objectives. Each person makes his or her own decision.
If you find swapping discs a problem, consider copying them all to a computer hard disc. This is relatively new in the mass market, helped along by iTunes etc. iTunes gives a simple interface. With a remote control you never have to get up at all.
Most retailers dislike disc changers. They have a pretty poor reliability record. Now I know that there's loads about that never went wrong, but relatively speaking changers are a bad deal from a reliability point of view by comparison to single disc machines and this costs the retailer usually since they're more often than not warranty failures.
Add to this that nowadays you can get yourself a hard disc recorder with 250Gig (about 500 CDs with no compression) or more in a standard sized box for less money and you'll see that changers are not likely long for this world.
The problem now becomes software management. With all those albums in a box, you need a better than one-line interface to choose what you want to play. At the moment the interfaces are a bit noddy, but this is an area which is improving quickly.
That said, single-disc developments have moved on apace. There have been a few signature developments that have had significant impact, such as HDCD filtering, not so important from a retail point of view but very important from a filtering point of view leading to better upsampling and oversampling techniques which are a relatively inexpensive way of curing a lot of digital ills.
That said, there's no substitute for quality implementation. You can use the best technology in the world, but if you don't use it right, it'll still turn out a mess. Therefore you'll get just as many rubbish HDCD players as you do good ones for example, and this is why we usually advocate listening to intended purchases before stumping up any cash.
I actually want to extend this thread. r. bowen makes some excellent points and I can merely reaffirm my own experience as an example.
At the end of 1987, I bought a very pricey Kyocera DA-710cx CD player. It costs something like $800 then and I used it a lot. Every so often I went into the local stereo shops looking for a replacement, especially after Kyocera exited the audio market (went back to making knives, I guess) but until a couple of years ago, I did not hear any player that I felt represented a true improvment in the sound.
My own theory on this is that while digital may have progreessed by quantum leaps, it has been the analogue stages that have been badly neglected by most manufacturers. I have demo'ed a lot of CD players over the past four years and even some very high priced ones from large manufacturers sound rather poor. I have spoken with a number of audio engineers about it and their view is that they are merely getting an accurate read off the disk--if there is a problem with the sound, it must be the recording, and not their player.
This is why we generally perceive that the best CD players are from the small specialty manufacturers, such as Rega, Music Hall and Arcam (and even Adcom). They spend a lot of time massaging the analogue portion of their player rather than worrying about squeezing an "nth" more accuracy from the digital processing. Consequently, they tend to be coveted by listeners who actually use their audio systems (I know a lot of people with nice audio system, but they rarely, if ever, use it. I guess it is a badge of success rather than something to actually use and enjoy).
One of the reasons I believe why my beloved Kyocera (after nearly 20 years, it is essentially a member of the family) sounds so good is that alone among the Japanese brands, Kyocera sought to bring audiophile level sound to a more affordable price range. Their engineers spent a lot of time tuning the analogue stages to provide a very well defined, yet warm mellow sound that was very enjoyable to listen to. Manufacturers who spend all of their time worrying about the "1s" and "0s" in the digital stages at the expense of a good analogue stage end up with a player not worth listening to. In the time I have had my Kyocera, my father in law (a man who could squeeze a quarter so hard that the eagle will scream) has gone through five (5) different players, starting with a single disk Denon player, to a Yamaha single disk, to a Yamaha five disc carousel, a Sony five disc carousel, ultimately to a Sony 100 disk jukebox type player. He concluded that he couldn't get any better sound, so why not go with the player that held all of his disks (he never takes my advice, so what the heck). I do find it interesting that my in-laws (as retirees and music majors in college) rarely listen to that player. He was chasing the perceived improvements in digital reproduction, but I don't think I ever heard any real improvement in the delivered sound.
Last year, I finally replaced my Kyocera with a Rotel, as much over fearing that my Kyocera had to be near death with all of the work it was getting (nevertheless, it marches on--what a champ). The Rotel is a nice single disk player that does seem to be able to play more detail than my Kyocera (particularly when playing an HDCD disk), but I do not find it any more pleasing to listen to. I do not say this as a criticism of the Rotel, merely an observation that I found the Kyocera to be very "listenable," that is, one that I can spend hours listening to without fatigue, and I can actually enjoy listening to for long periods of time. The Rotel is also a good listen, but not an improvement in this aspect. So, my feeling is that if you get it right in the first place, the piece of gear can be very useful for a very long time. I recognize that we live in a "disposable" society, where there is a lot of subtle pressure to "upgrade" our cars, our houses, and our audio gear, etc. Yet, most of these upgrades are an illusion, at best. There is a thread on the "Speakers" forum that asks "True sonic breathrough or merely hype?" Sheesh. It is always hype--the thread isn''t even worth answering.
To r. bowen: I suspect your Adcom changer, like my Kyocera, will be hard to improve upon, single disk or changer. Adcom has made some very nice players over the years as they have expended great efforts to get the analogue stage right. Can you improve upon it? I think the answer to that is yes, but then at what price? To upgrade simply because you have been told that there have been quantum improvements in digital reproduction is not the best reason to upgrade. Now, if you actually listen to a product that to your ears you can say "hey, that sounds much better than my Adcom" then you have a compelling reason to make the change. But simply because a audio publication writer postulates things are so much better today than five years ago or so, is a very flimsy basis to make a change. After all, they are in the business of promoting more sales of audio products, and their opinions must be read with a certain amount of cynicism. So go listen, and if you actually find one you want to listen to for extended periods of time an you perceive an improvement that you enjoy, then you have a compelling reason to change.
Well said, Hawk, timely and accurate. So many old players will 'soldier on' as you say. So many others will be blown away by a rotel 1072, it is not worth mentioning.
A lot of oldies are highly prized, and a quick re-clock will bring them up to speed(so to speak) without damaging their qualities. Or just sit back and enjoy. Big Audio canna touch your pleasure. Enjoy...cheers!
When you say a rotel 1072 will blow others away, I would amend that by saying the 1072 and its older brother, the 1070 will blow many newer players away, because they will.
There is a reason why there is a serious resale market for quality brands (such as Rotel) and why the mass brands tend to be disposable items, not matter how many ads they run to trumpet their new "sonic breakthroughs."
Thanks, Hawk. Yup, those players are just right for me, incredibly accurate. Which would make them forward for somebody else, of course. But so it goes.
only just noticed this thread. Seems to me to be some very good info provided so far. I cannot help but agree.
I can only speak from my personal experience, and for me I have found that, yes I do believe that a lot of what is written in the print magazines is to my ears atleast a gross exaggeration about the capabilities of current day CD players.
Also, I think that some of recent 'developments' in CD player filter/DSP design are actually a negative step. CD playback has been 'bent' to fit DVD technology. Most digital filters in current day machines, operate at a rate which is a multiple of 48Khz, not the base 44.1 Khz base sample frequency of red book CD. To me, this asynchronous sample rate conversion is detrimental to playback quality. (Commercial factors must be at play here...)
These days, only a few high end machines, stick to integer multiples of 44.1Khz, Levinson 390S and the Moon Andromeda spring to mind, the rest of stuff out there uses off the shelf chipsets, all based on DVD sample rates.
But I am aware that the above is technicalities, and just numbers. I guess I am trying to look for explanations for what I am hearing, and in particular why I am for the most part totally shocked at the discrepancy with what I hear and the purple prose in the magazines re: contemporary CD players.
For me the two current machines that have impressed me are 1) the Rega Apollo and 2) the ESound E5 from China. Both machines are good, since the designers have taken an overall approach, and looked at all aspects: digital transport, PSU, analog stages, clocking etc.
At home I am running a modded Sony XA-5ES (cost me $700AUD (pre-loved) + $1400AUD for the mods). This modded machine, blows the doors off most current machines, and easily betters what I can buy locally new for $4000AUD. To better this machine will take a very sizeable amount of cash.
In stock form, this Sony machine was incredibly detailed, and had seismic bass from its DC coupled output stage, but the treble register was too forward. To me this machine sounded like one with a lot of potential, which had never really been voiced correctly. It also had an excellent transport, highly separated power supplies, and impeccable build quality. That is why I chose this machine as a good candidate for mods. These observations where backed up by the folks at LC-Audio in Denmark from whom the hot-up parts were sourced for the mods.
There is a lot of value still to be found in older Sony ES machines, older Marantz, and Accuphase machines. It just depends how adventerous you feel.
In summary trust your ears, take everything you read in the print mags with a pinch of salt. They sure don't make 'em like they used to, but if you shop wisely there are still a few good new machines like the Apollo or the ESound E5.
One point I forgot to mention, since the OP talks about replacing a cd changer.
Another contemporary machine that has impressed me, which could replace a CD changer is a Slim Devices Squeezebox. But the Squeezebox I listened to had the basic analogue mods from Red Wine Audio (better RCA sockets, and a bypass of the output stage op-amps, I think the signal was taken straight from the DAC and run to the sockets via a pair of Auricaps.
This was a very pleasant sounding device, and had a very good user interface also.