Hello, I have been looking for a CD player that is truly airy, transparent, and in this sense similar to vinyl. So far I did not have much luck. I tried a variety of brands, from Rega to Meridian to Ayre, and now own an EAR Acute. Each of these players is wonderful in its own way, but the sense of spaciousness, air, the "I am there in the symphony hall" feeling has never achieved what I can get with a good turntable and good cart. Has anyone had better luck?
The best digital front end for $6k I have heard is the PS Audio Perfect wav system. You can burn hi-resolution wav files up to 24/192 and play them back natively via the PW transport on DVD or via the music server option in the DAC alone (The Bridge). CD's in 16/44 sound very good too. No need to upsample, just play back natively. The transport is a memory reader, so it' buffers the audio data, removes jitter prior to the D/A conversion. The memory player elimimates alot of the problems inherant in reading and converting the data on the fly via traditional cd transports since cd reading error correction is not needed. The data is reclocked in the buffer stage and then read out to the D/A. For digital, I love the perfect wav system. Of course my analog rig trounces it....especially the 16 bit source material.
I just ran across a new (to me, at least), CD format, called LPCD. Attributed to Mr Aik Yew-Goh of Hugo Productions Ltd HK. It is purported to replicate a more analog sound from cd. My post may not quite belong here, tho I do not possess the masochistic tendencies needed to begin a thread!
audiofeil, all you do is pontificate blowing out a lot of hot air helping no one to the truth. You have no idea what I have here. Not one iota. You are just a dealer who is sore at me because you just can't stand someone talking about a system's greatness when nothing you sell is part of that system.
my being a reviewer has nothing to do with your comment about changing your position.
you and i are like oil and water.
i suspect you would disagree with anything i said, even if you held to the position yourself. you tend to be contentious, ornery and not a very nice person.
the issue of being a reviewer is merely a smokescreen for your psychological problems. see a shrink. you'll live longer.
My ears tell me that digital can be satisfactory on certain types of music where there is less musical information and dynamic swings. Even then when compared to a great vinyl set-up it misses the mark on the air surounding instruments as noted above. This is a really big deal for me in absolute context of listening to music where there is more of a believability factor.
I keep on hearing how digital is getting better and suppose it is but I haven't been willing to spend the dough to get something that will be obsolete or bettered at half the price a few years later. You don't get that with vinyl. Money spent today on a carefully put together set-up will hold its own down the road. I can't say I've heard enough digital front ends to make any kind of judgement on where the current SOTA is but I can say I highly doubt any digital front end regardless of price will compete with a top notch vinyl front end.
The litmus test in comparing should be a great recording of an orchestra..... i.e. Chicago Symphony Orchestra Fritz Reiner "Scherezade" originally released by RCA, subsequently by Chesky and Classic records... with all the dynamic shadings and complex harmonic tones. Someone please direct me to a digital device that can convey the air and natural tone of massed strings that one hears live and is only approached by vinyl? I haven't heard it to this day but it would be nice to know it such a digital product exists.
"Someone please direct me to a digital device that can convey the air and natural tone of massed strings that one hears live and is only approached by vinyl?"
I agree that is one of the toughest things to get really well done with Redbook CD digital.
The reference standard for this I've heard is DCS Puccini on a very high end tube system running Magico Mini's.
An all mbl system running mbl 111s in a large showroom was also up there.
My rig does it well enough now to hold my interest. Getting to that while not mucking up the rest was not easy!
"The reference standard for this I've heard is DCS Puccini on a very high end tube system running Magico Mini's"
Well Mapman, thats what I was afraid of. But even so if it gets close, real close, it is really nice to know that maybe someday, somehow there will be a trickle down effect to the common audiophile and music lover. I do have faith that this will happen, maybe not in SACD/CD format but digital streaming downloads...who knows what tomorrow will bring. You just gotta believe!
Ok, back to the topic at hand. I have tried many CD players. Some were good at PRAT. Some were good at smoothness, and some were clocked to a Souza march. All lacked one thing. That is harmony. It's what strings the notes together into seamlessness. Vinyl has that naturally. It sends the untouched musical waves to the preamp.
The problem with 98% of CD players is that the engineers strive to get clean notes for the outcome. So you often get a sound that can be perceived as correct analytically. Their scopes show low distortion, and accurate clocking. I look at it this way, The best oversampling CD players sound really good if that is all you know.
As usual, for me, I argue for non-oversampling DACs often. I want to talk about that something else that digital players OS and NOS can't get. The notes are all there, but the analog result lacks a very important condition that vinyl has naturally. It is hard for anyone to explain it. You just have to witness it. Music should flow harmoniously, as little handled as possible.
My class D amps and house preamp has balls with truism. The Apogee Scintilla starves for real music. The best I had heard with this grand speaker was with an excellent record player. The sound was never forgettable. With my power group I could get the fast turns, powerful dynamics, and great detail. It was better than my memory, except for one thing, that eery liveliness. What was wrong, I thought to myself, walking around a circle wringing my hands. It was a record player. Maybe....
I have the ticket to bring that missing ingredient only vinyl could give. Someone up above mentioned the PS Audio Perfect Wave duo and as careful as the engineers were to give you a clean chain of notes, it does not equal vinyl to that listener. It is very smooth and dynamic. Unfortunately it misses the frankly honest analog play from a good vinyl rig.
Instead of buying the PS Audio, I chose the 47 Lab Flatfish unheard. I did that, because their philosophy matches mine... simple brings better things. Their attention to a solid reading of the CD and a remarkably short circuit works magic into the outcome (I can say that, because I am not an engineer). The designer says you will experience harmony and bass detail you always missed before. I was looking forward to the bass improvement because my PS Audio transport was not too good at that.
I was frankly shocked just what this little transport did to my non-oversampling sound. I was use to great dynamics, quick transitions, and fine detail. I did love the bass of the Flatfish. I didn't know what expect in terms of harmony. Like everyone, I didn't know what I was missing with a great NOS system. When the Flatfish spun the CD, I understood exactly what they meant by harmony. The information off the CD is amazingly complete. The original recording does get stamped on that silver disc complete. Engineers have done everything they could to change the output with multiple chips. The flatfish/AN sounds real, and beautifully entertaining. The music flows lyrically. The detail actually improved. That was just an insignificant bonus. No, this is something else... Music, as it should sound.
There is a review of the Flatfish with it's Progression DAC. The reviewer got it right with the same comments I am using. Unfortunately his, and all reviews of the 47 Lab Flatfish include it's DAC, the Progression. I am sorry to say this, but my Audio Note DAC with a pin up it's butt is a far cry better than the 47 Lab house DAC sound. I remember a reviewer bringing up just that point, AN DACs rule over the 47 Lab DACs.
I hope I explained this well enough. It isn't the 1s and 0s that are the problem with digital players. It is the overworking of the signal that is the problem. See what huge CD players are out there. They have size, cushion, and every up sampling, oversampling, filter, clocks invented.
First, to beat vinyl, get a DAC with no chips other than the convertor with clock. Then buy the 47 Lab Flatfish transport, and it's power supply, the Dumpty. Then match it to a great system. There, you have got it, I promise. You will not fret another crackle playing your vinyl again.
The best of my CD players is my Audio Research CD7. At my request, my audio dealer set up my exact same system at his home, except he used a CD8 instead of a CD7. We then listened to a lot of music, with "my system" alone and then running my system through the dCS Debussy. I have to tell you, adding the Debussy is the way I intend to go as soon as I can. That was absolutely the best digital I have ever heard. Very, very close to what you get from a high end vinyl setup.
Muralman, while I totally get your point about how and why Vinyl sounds superior to digital and the case of "Harmony" and I also understand your preference to NOS dacs and simplistic but well designed transports (47 labs) I am still a bit confused. I am confused because while I too love the Vinyl sound I have discovered that when I listen to hi-rez, typically 24/192 files downloaded from the likes of HD Tracks and Linn I do not miss the Vinyl sound at all. Rather I start questioning if vinyl sound is in anyway better than this !! I mean if we are really trying to achieve a sound quality which is as good as or better than Vinyl, shouldnt it come through the fundamentals of the media rather than trying to use components which mimic the Vinyl sound ? After all Vinyl is not just appreciated for its harmony and analogue-ness, it is all appreciated for its extreme frequency extension on both ends, very high resolution and superb soundstaging. I dont think the combo you have mentioned does all that. I mean the limitation of AN dacs are well known though they are extremely good components. Either we go all hi-rez both in terms of contents and equipments and achieve/beat the Vinyl sound on a wholesome basis or we stick to NOS dacs and try to achieve a partial Vinyl-like sound and remain content. There might be some dacs which will do the balancing act really well and that is exactly what I am looking for.
Pani, It was not my intention to give impression I was trying to get a vinyl sound. What got audiofeil al worked up was I said my system beats vinyl. I can't agree CDs don't contain the lows and highs that vinyl systems do. The lowly CD does have all the lows and highs, and beyond that it has some 30% more dynamic headroom. Now, that is significant.
I know, from past experience, high res discs (I liked DDD) they have a thicker presence in most systems. In the real good systems I have heard, you really have to listen hard for the difference if any.
My Audio Note DAC is not stock. The remake of the circuit including a crucial diode swap opens the full frequency bandwidth. Now my AN exhibits excellent attack like rim strikes.
The highs are, "Exquisite," according to one listener. Here is the rest of his quote, "It is unreal how good the Flatfish and the Audio note sounds. It has the right amount of ambience, air, staging. Bass is beyond description. Very tuneful and meaty with right amount of pitch definition. Vocal is NIRVANA to listen to. Nothing is exaggerated. No wonder you have been screaming how good your system sounds, unfortunately to most with deaf ears. Oh well, Too bad they missed out big time."
The DCS gear uses a proprietary and quite sophisticated and well executed programmable DAC architecture (the "Ring" DAC).
I have not studied the exact algorithm used, but I believe the DCS DAC architecture in general to be absolute SOTA in regards to its precision digital signal processing capabilities for this application (high end sound) and is the thing that puts DCS in its own league in regards to being able to do massed strings and such in a manner comparable to vinyl/analog.
I say that based on my own professional experience with very high end digital image processing and knowing what it takes to squeeze the nth degree of accurate detail out of digitally encoded signals in general (plus having listened to a lot of music and audio gear over the years).
The $300 (used) mhdt Constantine DAC that I currently favor in my rig is at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of design approach as I understand it, but is also of very high quality, I believe.
It does a fairly straight up A to D conversion using no filtering or other digital signal processing in the equation.
The results are quite good I would say in comparison to the much more expensive DCS.
I would estimate that the DCS squeezes that last bit of enjoyable detail out in the case of massed strings, similar to good vinyl, but for way higher cost.
Practically, for me, the difference is a non issue. What I have is 100% listenable with ALL kinds of music, not just the elusive massed strings. What the DCS does is fill in that last minute but detectable bit of harmonic detail reliably in a manner that vinyl lovers will appreciate.
If I did not compare my digital to other high quality rigs, or even the best vinyl in my own rig, I would probably not even know or care what I might be missing.
I take my medication for audiophilia every day. It helps me appreciate what I have and helps keep more money in my pocket as well!
Mapman, upon reading your post, I saw a CD player I never heard, or read a review of, the Constantine. So, I looked it up and found this lovely review of it, and another similar DAC. My DAC has four tubes. There will always be arguments on the worth of tubes. All I care is if the resulting music strikes me as being authentic.
I fully agree with you, Mapman, that one device in a system with tubes is a good thing. Mine are in the DAC. The DAC is my system's voice. The transport just hands over the perfect digital reading.
Mapman I have checked out the mhdt NOS DACs and the reviews. It seems all the reviewers came to the same consensus concerning the sonic characteristics of these DACs, excellent build quality, lack of digital etchiness, natural presence and timbre accuracy seem to be the consistent theme here. There is also the top of the line Havana which also uses a tube buffered output as well as the Paradisea 3. Looks quite promising especially at the price point. Thanks for your input.
One area where my experience with the mhdt DACs differs a bit from the reviewers is that I believe the COnstantine to have better high and low end frequency extension and better dynamics overall than the Paradisea. The Constantine's bass may come across as leaner overall though but is spot on in my main rig.
Tube rolling does make a very significant difference though with the Paradisea and I have only tried two different tubes to-date.
Also I find the Constantine is dead quiet.
I have some background hiss with the Paradisea, but you have to put your ear right up to the speaker with the volume well up to be able to even hear it, no worse certainly that what you would expect from most decent if not the absolute best phono rigs.
Thanks for the info Mapman. I will weigh this in my decision as I am seriously considering trying one of these units for the hell of it. I sure haven't been convinced as closely as this to anything else I've read or listened to lately at this price point.
Mapman I received the Mhdt Havana yesterday. It was shipped from Taiwan on Friday, can you believe that?!
This DAC reminds me of a great SET amp except it is extended in the upper frequencies, well I should say my system really permits this with this DAC without any irritating digital artifacts. The natural decay of instruments and the ability to focus in on the performance rather that the sound is quite remarkable. The experience reminds me of years ago listening to the beautiful Joule OTL operating at zero feedback with my vinyl rig. Huge soundstage (more of a wow factor than anything musically important to me), great transparency,liquid without sounding dark and syrupy, tonally it really nails it which permits total involvement with the music without any desire to critically dissect the sound, this is a good sign.
I haven't heard many new ones lately but I do believe for the price this DAC in the right system is quite a performer that has a sense of continuousness similar to really good analog, at least in my set-up. It is about the music for sure. Thank you for making me aware of Mhdt, it is a very special piece.
Muralman I don't know exactly what you mean by more spark. I don't want the above comments to reflect an opinion that digital has finally arrived at where vinyl has evolved to. I'm not too sure about that but I can say this DAC does a lot of things right including the timing cues that you hear in live music and great analog and separates a performance from good sound. I really felt that listening to some CD's was for the first time and it didn't make any difference whether they were great or mediocre recordings. The Havana gets the timing right like analog. Further listening is in order to make more critical judgements on its absolute performance with regard to air above and around instruments which is one of the hallmarks of great analog IMHO. I suspect that the unit needs some breakin before I can determine what it is truly capable of.
As one of the above posters above Kjo notes, the Audio Aero Capitol is very analog sounding. It is probably the best digital I have heard to date in an extremely resolving system. I'm sure there is as good or better but the key here is to have a system capable of hearing these subtle differences as Muralman notes. This is important as the source is only as good as what follows. I do have a sense of what I have read in this thread that NOS DACs may be a great solution in some systems but may not work in all. I doubt one size fits all but I can say in my highly evolved all tube system which has been a work in progress over the past 10 years it works well indeed.
Not that my rig is SOTA, but having heard many SOTA setups, I think that practically it competes well, and I am challenged to hear any practical difference between my digital and vinyl (other than surface noise with vinyl).
I have things tuned so that my digital and vinyl sound most similar using the Constantine on my main rig, and the Paradisea on my 2 channel A/V system.
The important thing is to have a good reference standard to go by. If you have good vinyl as a reference standard, then I find the digital can be practically tuned to come very close. However, there may be more involved than just swapping on digital player for another. You have to really pay attention to all teh possibilites that determine the resulting sound. Not easy....
I am big on air, sound stage, and imaging and my system does very well in this regard with both digital and vinyl.
"You have to really pay attention to all the possibilites that determine the resulting sound. Not easy"
This is true Mapman, agreed. I also agree with you concerning practical differences as well. How much does it matter? Practically I don't like the TT as well as the convenience of digital but I've never had a digital device that came close to fooling me into believing it is as good or ultimately as enjoyable. This one does and it may prove to be a moot point on how important the differences are when weighing all the practical matters. I will always listen to vinyl because I have so much good music on it not because I love the medium itself and the rituals involved in keeping it sounding optimum. Having said that i always enjoy listening to the music on vinyl. I have not listened to much digital over the past several years because it has been too fatiguing and absolutely not enjoyable, until now.
On a further note, I don't consider my system in any way SOTA but it is very well balanced with great resolution which has taken a lot of effort to get right with cables, vibration isolation and various tweeks. Most importantly it is well suited to my musical tastes. I am a huge proponent of vibration isolation with all especially source components. This can make a huge improvement. So there are plenty of things to try out with the Havana. It needs some burn in so I'm sure there will be some subtle changes in that area as well, we'll see.
By spark I mean, does the trumpet have bite, can the violin hit those ultra high notes with grace, are drum rim hits in proper proportion with excellent attack?
Audio Note gave NOS sound a bad name in the lower models roll off the highs, and the bass is pudgy. Those same DACs can become world beaters just with a a little component switching.
TT can't compare to CD when it comes to dynamic range. Listening to Liszt played vigorously, you need the full dynamic range to get all the artistry. You also have to get every key press to just the exact degree.
My amp and preamp set up a stage where the source can fully express itself. I can tell you for sure, the Audio Aero will stumble here.
I understand what you are saying, never heard this adjective before.
So far as dynamic range, I dunno know about that Muralman, so far as dynamics. I've heard some pretty mind boggling analog front ends in that area. In any event even if digital is better in this area can it match it in the other areas previously discussed in the here and now in ways that matter? Or is is close enough that it really isn't that important. You have stated a very clear opinion on that and it certainly isn't lost on me.
I would love to hear Liszt on steroids on those Apogees of yours Muralman. You make a very persuasive argument aside from all the great fun watching you spear chucking with Audiofeil ;^)
I think with vinyl, there is no imposed limit to dynamic range imposed by the format as there is with Redbook CD. So it is possible for vinyl to achieve greater dynamic range in theory.
But in practice, most records are not recorded and produced in a manner that stretches those limits, though some do.
One of the reasons is that it takes a very good turntable setup to be able to track a record produced with very large dynamics accurately without mistracking or distortion creeping in.
Ironically, a lot of teh early Telarc digitally recorded lps were designed to demonstrate the dynamic range capabilities of the new digital recording technology. I recall most turntables, even decent ones, that most people owned could not track those well. They helped up the ante in terms of what one might expect out a good phono rig in terms of dynamics.
In practice, wither vinyl or CD can hold the edge in regards to dynamics on a case by case, recording to recording basis, despite the fact that a really good phono rig and a really good recording together tehse days might be able to set the bar.
One other point I would put out there is that I find the better CD recordings out there do not leave me wanting in any regard relating to dynamics, so the real limits of the format are not of any real consequence, at least for me.
Where the 16 bits available in CD Redbook format to capture dynamics probably does fall a tad short in comparison to the best analog, is in the area of microdynamics, in other words, the deficiency is in how well small differences in waveform magnitude is represented, not the largest ones, which is what determines dynamic range.
This is why bowed strings and other instruments capable of producing extended duration complex yet subtle harmonics that do not vary much in magnitude, like massed strings, are perhaps the hardest thing to get 100% correct with CDs.
I also think the DCS ring dac architecture is SOTA in its ability to fill in those microdynamics in an ear friendly manner (though it is still just an estimate of what is missing) as a result of its highly randomized dithering capabilities.
Other well executed DACs like the mhdt's at various price points are extremely close however. USe of the tube out stage in the tubed mhdt DACs can help also by applying an ear friendly very high frequency low pass filter, as does a lot of gear out there, either via tubes or other approaches.
One last point. Remember that our ability to hear the highest audible recorded frequencies lessens as we age. Most people, including myself in that category, can no longer hear the very high frequencies that we are talking about where these subtle differences occur.
So for many older golden eared audiophiles, this last degree of detail that might not be there with CD redbook is a non-issue and everything can be 100% golden.
Your dog may be able to hear such things and care but we golden eared audiophiles will never know.....
FWIW, my dog sits and listens to music with me often and seems to enjoy it. I can see his ears twitch and move in accordance with what is playing, so I know that he at least gets it in general!
The literature says barely 60 db for vinyl and 90 for CD. That depends on the recording. I have had folks at my place who are record heads. They left with big grins on their faces.
Oh btw Muralman as follow up to your Listz comments above. Last night I pulled out a Mercury Living Presence remastering of Ennesco and Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies compliation Antal Dorati conducting the London Symphony Orchestra, haven't listened to it in years and certainly never heard it like this, let me tell you! The 2nd Rhapsody was quite mind boggling in the way this DAC presented the dynamic contrasts in this piece which is really a piano piece. The opening grabs you in the gut, very rich, tonally accurate organic presentation.
On really great piano recordings I am hearing the dynamics and weight as never before on my previous lowly digital set-up but I must say is rivaling my vinyl rig. The verdict is still out on the high frequency performance compared to vinyl especially with orchestral music as I am still experimenting around and putting this DAC through the paces. Also ordered a few of the recommended tubes, we'll see but I am REALLY impressed now.
I was not aware there is a spec dynamic range limit for vinyl?
If there is, it is quite old and hence not surprising if newer CD redbook specs surpass it.
Seems to me though that in practice the only limit for vinyl dynamic range is how much modulation can be represented in the grooves and practically how well any record player might be able to track it.
Most record players from the golden age of vinyl were not particularly excellent trackers like more modern tables that ironically came about mostly late in the game and as the tide of digital started to appear on the horizon. So practically if you wanted to sell lots of records, the dynamic range had to be limited in order for people to practically be able to play the record.
Of course there was a small niche for audiophile recordings even back then that raised the general bar, but again this became more of a specialty niche for recordings way before digital ever reared its revolutionary head.
Oh course you are right Mapman, and I am referring to audiophile pressings as well as the Mercury and RCA's of old. There are many great recordings from that golden age. The decline was "dynagroove" and the like in the early to mid 60's. Many of the recordings are limited for the reasons you state. It is too bad that the technology of the playback of the time wasn't in step with the engineering and quality of pressings, especially in the 50's when the LP was in its infancy. When recordings and console stereos became the norm in households there was that need for a standard and the recordings suffered.
In reality there is no theoretical limit to the dynamic potential of vinyl playback. I agree with you that on certain music and for sound effects digital can do things vinyl can't. The important thing so far as dynamics in my comparing the two is the gradations between say from pianissimo to a rising cresendo or in the other direction and lending a believability that what you are hearing is almost real. Too much dynamic emphasis is an exaggeration and typically a product of a system imbalance but it is also an effect that some want to hear. Telarc really exploited this with their early recordings. I have a few. I certainly never heard anything like these recordings in a concert hall. It is the micro dynamics and the shifts. Digital in general never did this convincingly to my ears but a few times in other systems but I am now hearing this effect with the Havana all the while maintaining the tonality and natural decay in the soundfield, that continuousness. The Havana presents these dynamics gradations extremely convincingly although I'm sure some would want to hear more "detail", the music is all there to my ears. That final gap between real and playback is the real space and air that will probably never be realized, we just get a bit closer. My real excitement about this whole experience is that really decent digital playback has seemingly arrived at a reasonable price point.
I still have some great vinyl piano recordings that I doubt will be equaled by any of my digital recordings but this still remains to be seen. The Havana is DEFINITELY going through a breakin. This is generally apparent in most but not all electronics in my experience but in this particular piece I am hearing an IMPROVEMENT, not change, in weight and body which adds a greater sense of realism when there are large dynamic shifts in the music. I suspect this is much of what I am hearing and it is impressive but still subjective in this discussion.
"It is too bad that the technology of the playback of the time wasn't in step with the engineering and quality of pressings, especially in the 50's when the LP was in its infancy."
That is a fact.
Hifi and stereo recordings were a big deal in marketing terms back in teh 50's and perhaps even early 60's and the quality of many early recordings reflect that.
Then, the usual economic realities and true mass marketing set in. Meanwhile the playback equipment continued to improve to fill the needs of those in the minority who cared about ultimate sound quality.
I look at the bright side. I can afford my quest for good sound much better today than I could back then and so I am blessed. Those old vinyl hifi recordings and CD remasters of old stuff that never really sounded so great back then all sounds better than ever to me these days.
I really do not see much to complain about in this area these days. We have the best of both worlds available at our fingertips.
"Those old vinyl hifi recordings and CD remasters of old stuff that never really sounded so great back then all sounds better than ever to me these days"
Then again maybe its them ole ears, eh Mapman? I hear ya:)
"Then again maybe its them ole ears, eh Mapman? I hear ya:)"
No doubt years of training ones ears listening to different things makes a big difference, even if the ability to discern the higher frequencies one could hear as a youth goes mostly down the tubes.
if you know anything about, science, math or logic and experimental design, if one person prefers a digital front end to an analog front end, it disproves the hypothesis that vinyl is better than digital.
i suggest you go back to school and get an education. your ignorance is showing.
your comments are based upon induction, not deduction. try to learn the difference.
from now on i'm going to address you as mr bluster of the howdy doody show.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
