hqyy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (09/22/90)
hi, since this newsgroup seems to be a bit more openminded than those loosers at rec.audio, i would like to solicit opinions on the Proceed CD player and DSP (also any info on players around $1500 would be appreciated). thanks. satish PS What is the consensus on the CD re-issues of the Mercury Living Presence series. i purchased Balalaika Favorites and Birds/Brazillian Impressions and althought they don't quite measure up to my original lps, i think they are MUCH better than the Golden Import series done by Philips.
paul@uunet.UU.NET (Paul Homchick) (10/03/90)
In article <6536@uwm.edu> hqyy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > since this newsgroup seems to be a bit more openminded than >those loosers at rec.audio, i would like to solicit opinions on >the Proceed CD player and DSP (also any info on players around $1500 >would be appreciated). I have a Proceed DAC. It is quite well constructed and uses very high quality parts. I bought it primarily because of it's ability to process a 48Khz digital signal so I could improve the playback from my Awia HD-1 DAT deck. I borrowed the Proceed over a long weekend to audition it. My equipment consists of a Phillips CD-960, an Audio Research SP-6B, Audio Research EC-22 crossover, Conrad-Johnson MV-45, and Adcom GFA-555 driving a pair of LS3/5As and a pair of Kef B200s in transmission lines. (Also have a SOTA/Linn Itok). When comparing the Proceed and the Phillips, the Proceed sounded better. When trying to describe the differene, "louder" was th best I could do. After I purchased the Proceed, I got out a meter and measured things. The Phillips analog output was 1.5db down in one channel. The Proceed was louder. After correcting for this, I was unable to consistantly tell a difference using single-blind tests. I have decided that the differences between good CD playback systems is very miniscule indeed, and for the difference in sound versus the difference in money, your money is best spent elsewhere. I think I would have done much better by investing in some new speakers, or in 80 new CDs. The CD world is not like the LP one. With this technology, it is MUCH harder to get improvements for your money that it used to be with LPs. Indeed, everything is getting better in HiFi these days. For instance, I am amazed by the high number of quality speakers out there. 20 years ago when I first came upon the word "audiophile," the number of *good* speakers was very small. There was the Infinity Servo Static I, and things went downhill from there. I have decided it is time to start worrying more about the music and the performances. Those are where the big differences in musical enjoyment are. P.S. I plan on taking my Phillips and Proceed to a friend's place some weekend where I will re-audition things and include some highly modified Phillips players. Since this friend insists that there are significant audible differences, I expect to hear SOME differences. However, I will be VERY surprised if I change my opinion of the money versus improvement ratio at work here. -- Paul Homchick :UUCP {rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc. :Internet cgh!paul@dsi.com 259 Radnor-Chester Rd, Suite 140 :MCI PHOMCHICK Radnor, PA 19087-5299 :GEnie HOMCHICK
rshapiro@uunet.UU.NET (Richard Shapiro) (10/05/90)
In article <6737@uwm.edu> cbmvax!cgh!paul@uunet.UU.NET (Paul Homchick) writes: >When comparing the Proceed and the Phillips, the Proceed sounded >better. When trying to describe the differene, "louder" was th best I >could do. After I purchased the Proceed, I got out a meter and >measured things. The Phillips analog output was 1.5db down in one >channel. The Proceed was louder. After correcting for this, I was >unable to consistantly tell a difference using single-blind tests. > >I have decided that the differences between good CD playback systems >is very miniscule indeed, and for the difference in sound versus the >difference in money, your money is best spent elsewhere. Well, I listened to the Proceed cd player (not the Proceed DAC described above, but presumably similar in sound) next to a high-end Denon and an Adcom and the differences were very substantial, especially in soundstage and "air". The Proceed far outclassed the other two along this dimension. There were also significant differences in the harshness of the highs. The Adcom was over-harsh with some source material (female voice, in particular); the Denon was never harsh but did seem slightly compressed on the same kind of material. The Proceed struck a good balance between the two. I did this casual test in a store, but the system was close to the one I use at home: Spica Angelus speakers (which can accentuate harsh highs); Counterpoint amp; Audio Reseach preamp. I used a variety of discs, but the most telling ones were the Cowboy Junkies' "Trinity Sessions" and the Tallis Scholars performing music of William Cornysh. Both are digital recodings So maybe the Madrigal products are close to some of the Philips players, but I wouldn't conclude on that basis that, in general, the differences between cd players is miniscule. This hasn't been the case in my listening experience.
paul@uunet.UU.NET (Paul Homchick) (10/15/90)
Further notes on listening to CD players:
I spent a few hours yesterday listening to a modified Phillips CD-80
used as a CD 'deck' hooked up to a Madrigal Proceed DAC and a modified
Phillips DAC-960. I also listened to my old Nakamichi OMS-4A, and
later substituted a stock Phillips CD-960 as the CD 'deck' feeding the
two DACs.
Associated equipment was a highly-modified Adcom GFP-565 driving two
Adcom GFA-565s and a pair of modified Magneplanar IIs.
I reported previously that I had a hard time hearing the difference
between the Proceed and the stock CD-960 on my system. Yesterday's
listening proved that differences between CD players are easily heard
providing the associated system is good enough. (The system described
above is evidently better than mine!)
As might be expected, the Nakamichi fared the worst. It sounded the
harshest, and had the least detail. Recordings tended to sound
'drier' and more 'electronic' on this player, presumably because of
less low-level information. However, my fellow auditors (Walt Jung
and Hampton Childress) expressed surprise at how good the Nak sounded.
They regarded it as superior to stock Phillips players.
We next compared the modified DAC-960 to the Proceed. All agreed that
the DAC-960 sounded best. It was less harsh on the very top of the
violins and trumpets, had more detail with things seeming (to me) more
clearly 'etched.' (Others might talk about 'air', a term which I
dislike). The Proceed was 'warmer' sounding than the modified
DAC-960, or less-detailed, depending on how you wanted to describe it.
We listened to a variety of classical sources including some Poulenc
chamber music on DGG 427 639-2, Shostakovich Symphony No. 8, Haitink,
London 411 616-2, Brahms Sonata No. 1 Op. 78 on Wilson Audiophile
WCD-8722, the Chesky JD2 Clark Terry CD, and the Mozart Clarinet
Concerto with Hogwood on L'Oiseau-Lyre 414 339-2.
When the stock CD-960 was substituted as a deck for the modified CD-80,
Walt Jung said it was more electronic and constricted, but I wasn't as
sure I could hear anything. (This was after several hours of
listening, and I was tired).
Finally, Jung and Childress said that they preferred the sound of the
Proceed to that of a Theta Pro they had heard two months ago.
They said the Theta's imaging wasn't as good, and that instrument
positions tended to wander during climaxes when listening to the
Theta. (I have never heard a Theta).
Walt Jung will probably be familiar to many of the readers of this
group, being a long-time audio author, and having done some pioneering
work on Transient Intermodulation Distortion back in the '70s.
Recently, he had been modifying CD players and writing about it in the
Audio Amateur. Hampton Childress has been working with Jung on the CD
modifications when he isn't playing in the Baltimore Symphony
Orchestra, which is what he does for a living.
Anyone who might be interested in purchasing modified Phillips players
from Jung-Childress or having a player modified (or in researching the
possibilities) might write to:
Jung-Childress Audio and Electronics
P.O. Box 36141
Towson, Maryland 21286
(To clarify things re: the internet non-commercial code: I have no
connection with this endeavor. I'm just a curious listener.)
In summary, I am convinced that there are clearly audible differences
between CD players. But, ONLY on the highest grade associated
equipment. I would caution anyone contemplating such an expense to
audition the player or converter in their own system. You may, or may
not, be able to tell the difference!
--
Paul Homchick :UUCP {rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul
Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc. :Internet cgh!paul@dsi.com
259 Radnor-Chester Rd, Suite 140 :MCI PHOMCHICK
Radnor, PA 19087-5299 :GEnie HOMCHICK