Do you agree with this statement re: CD players?

[teaser5]

I copied this off the Audio Research website regarding their C3 CD Player.
Would most members generally agree with the following?

"The CD3 will not play back DVD video, DVD audio or SACD-only discs because it is our firm belief that the convenience of multi-format playback sacrifices sonic performance in the CD format."

Also: anyone familiar with this machine? Pretty impressive looking on the site.
Cheers!
Norm

[Claviusb]

Norm, I've moved the thread because this is more of a hardware question.

Peace. :)

[teaser5]

Sorry...
I think it will be better ignored at Hardware too!
;)
Thanks
N

[Gary]

Not sure if I should ignore this or not.....

I believe that CD playback on low end SACD or DVD-A machines is an improvement over low end CD only players.

For high end I can see how this philosophy would appeal to .... "purist audiophiles" ??? I really don't know, though - I have not heard of anything like that.

[stereoptic]

teaser5 wrote: "The CD3 will not play back DVD video, DVD audio or SACD-only discs because it is our firm belief that the convenience of multi-format playback sacrifices sonic performance in the CD format."

so in other words, it's a redbook only player? :confused:

[teaser5]

Interesting you should call it a redbook only playback...
Here's the quote:

"What sets the CD3 apart from the so-called "combination" players on the market - whether DVD or SACD based -- is that the CD3 is designed to do one thing superbly: that is, to play back normal "redbook" music CDs, CD-R and CD-RW discs with maximum fidelity and full musical expression."

Cheers!
Norm

[Dave]

Generally, yes. Until they produce a really high-end CD/SACD/DVD-A/DVD player. Did you ever see a really high-end CD/Cassette player? I know that I never have.

[Tony Plachy]

I disagree. I think most of Sony's SACD players do a good to very good job on CD's and the new Musical Fidelity up samples and does an excellent job (with tubes no less) and if you happen to have $34K setting around doing nothing you can by the dCS three box unit and have a superb CD/SACD player

[stereoptic]

I'm still looking for a high end Cassette/"L" Cassette player :laugh: :laugh:

[Dave]

Originally posted by ALP
I disagree. I think most of Sony's SACD players do a good to very good job on CD's and the new Musical Fidelity up samples and does an excellent job (with tubes no less) and if you happen to have $34K setting around doing nothing you can by the dCS three box unit and have a superb CD/SACD player
Agreed ALP and probably it's the same with a few of the high-end DVD-a players and CD. I was more referring to a complete multi-player.

[Gerry]

While I understand why a high-end designer would like to forego the inclusion of video circuitry in a no-compromise design, I can't understand why top-quality DVD-A, SACD, and red-book CD playback are necessarily precluded from occupying the same chassis (HDCD might be another matter). This unit uses an off-the-shelf transport and DAC (one assumes that all other silicone is similarly sourced) and, once in the analog domain, a good output stage is a good output stage.

[Richard Feirstein]

My Sony 500V does a better job on CD's than the PCM decoder in my Denon 3802 Receiver, which is well regarded in this area. The objective of a hardware designer should be to produce hardware that provides the needed performance and the features consumers demand. Their position is a cop out, IMO.

Richard.

[pigmode]

Of course it stands to reason that a one-format player has the potential for higher performance than that of a multi-format player at a similar price point. Personal preferences, design, and design execution will tend to add more variables.

[grbl]

Originally posted by sasaki kojiro
Of course it stands to reason that a one-format player has the potential for higher performance than that of a multi-format player at a similar price point. Personal preferences, design, and design execution will tend to add more variables.

I agree. I also think that the more different things you try to stuff into one chassis, the more compromises you have to make.

[Graham Start]

Well, if we are to take their philosophy one step further, one should have separate turntables for 33 and 45 RPM discs. From an engineering viewpoint, there would be too many compromises made in designing one table that plays both, and that would obviously sacrifice sonic performance. In fact, one should also have a separate table for 7" vs 12" discs, since the cartridge could then be optimized for both record sizes. Going the next logical step, one should have a different table for every different thickness of vinyl that one will play -- so one for 200g pressings, one for 180g, one for standard, one for RCA dynaflex, and so on. This would allow VTA to be optimized for each thickness, without sacrificing the design integrity by making a tonearm with adjustable VTA. Also, one should have a seperate phono stage for each different mastering engineer and pressing plant, as they all have their own unique characteristics. This way one can apply the most suitable phono stage to each disc. And then there are the various different formulations in vinyl -- does one seriously think that one type of stylus is best for all? Of course not -- but each time you change the cartridge, the sanctity of the connections are compromised, so here again you are best purchasing separate equipment. Of course, one must also factor in how other components will respond in kind, so it is best to invest in separate interconnects, amplifiers, speakers, and room treatments for each situation. Ideally, one would have a completely different system for each and every recording.

Sounds like a way to sell a lot of redundant audio gear to me...

[grbl]

Originally posted by Graham Start
Well, if we are to take their philosophy one step further, one should have separate turntables for 33 and 45 RPM discs. From an engineering viewpoint, there would be too many compromises made in designing one table that plays both, and that would obviously sacrifice sonic performance. In fact, one should also have a separate table for 7" vs 12" discs, since the cartridge could then be optimized for both record sizes. Going the next logical step, one should have a different table for every different thickness of vinyl that one will play -- so one for 200g pressings, one for 180g, one for standard, one for RCA dynaflex, and so on. This would allow VTA to be optimized for each thickness, without sacrificing the design integrity by making a tonearm with adjustable VTA. Also, one should have a seperate phono stage for each different mastering engineer and pressing plant, as they all have their own unique characteristics. This way one can apply the most suitable phono stage to each disc. And then there are the various different formulations in vinyl -- does one seriously think that one type of stylus is best for all? Of course not -- but each time you change the cartridge, the sanctity of the connections are compromised, so here again you are best purchasing separate equipment. Of course, one must also factor in how other components will respond in kind, so it is best to invest in separate interconnects, amplifiers, speakers, and room treatments for each situation. Ideally, one would have a completely different system for each and every recording.

Sounds like a way to sell a lot of redundant audio gear to me...


And in fact many audiophile turntables (including my Linn Sondek) only handle 33 rpm. It's also the logic behind separates vs. receivers and separate cd transports and DACs.

[Gary]

Originally posted by grbl
I agree. I also think that the more different things you try to stuff into one chassis, the more compromises you have to make.

Or there are so many opportunities to take shortcuts that it's irrestable.

Or it's almost impossible to stuff entirely separate sets of electronics into one box - unless it's 10 inches high by 35 inches wide and weighs 60 lbs.

Maybe we are expecting miracles here - perhaps a universal player is impossible to build and look "audiophilish" at the same time?

[krabapple]

Originally posted by teaser5
Interesting you should call it a redbook only playback...
Here's the quote:

"What sets the CD3 apart from the so-called "combination" players on the market - whether DVD or SACD based -- is that the CD3 is designed to do one thing superbly: that is, to play back normal "redbook" music CDs, CD-R and CD-RW discs with maximum fidelity and full musical expression."

Cheers!
Norm

LOL. Talk about repackaging old wine in new bottles!

Someday, some bright young combination sociologist/engineer will make a study of 'audiophile' marketing and advertising. It'll make for hilarious reading.

[teaser5]

I wanted to forward a link to this thread to AR and allow them to defend themselves but they have no e-mail capability at this time. Perhaps checking e-mail prohibits them from building the best possible audio components possible.....
;)
Norm

[Tony Plachy]

Originally posted by grbl


And in fact many audiophile turntables (including my Linn Sondek) only handle 33 rpm. It's also the logic behind separates vs. receivers and separate cd transports and DACs.

Folks, it is just a matter of how much cost (and thus price) you are willing to put into the equipment. Take the TT. At a certain cost point you can build a very good TT that just plays 33 rpm and has its arm set for 180 gr vinyl. Or you can add cost to add a very sophisticated speed controller and a very sophisticated VTA adjustment and you will have a TT that plays a wider range of vinyl just as well as the first one plays 180 gr 33's. In pre-amps you can build a true dual mono configuration or you can combine certain elements to save cost but sacrifice a little in sound. The same is true for a SACD/CD player. It just depends on how independent and how much quality you want to put in each part. The more independent and the more quality the more expensive it becomes.

[Clay]

I am not sure yet:
I thought the laser wavelength was different for optimum DVD and CD playback. If that is the case the inexpensive units would use a "compromise" wavelength and the expensive combo units may have a separate laser for each type of playback.

[lsupro]

Originally posted by teaser5
Sorry...
I think it will be better ignored at Hardware too!
;)
Thanks
N

did someone say ignore?

[BradOlson]

I disagree with their philosophy, it's just a way to sell redundant audio equipment.

[Gerry]

Originally posted by teaser5
...but they have no e-mail capability at this time.

Perhaps their computers are designed only to do one thing superbly and that happens not to be e-mail...

[teaser5]

Originally posted by Gerry


Perhaps their computers are designed only to do one thing superbly and that happens not to be e-mail...

Exactly.
Hey: Hello up 270 in Frederick from Gaithersburg!
Best
Norm