Hi Res CD's make all your stuff sound like...

disneyjoe7

Shitt!



That is all. :cool:

dkg999

One of the advantages of my Jolida 100 CDP is that it seems to do a good job of making marginal CD's listenable again! It won't save them all, but I've been amazed at how good some of the crap mastering/mixing CD's sound on the tubed CDP.

No doubt about it, the high-res CD's do sound better. I love the XRCD's that I have!

madmax

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Shitt!



That is all. :cool:

Sounds like someone has issues...

disneyjoe7

Issue's are right. I don't know I should cry because I love it or cry because I have 300 disks of shitt, XM radio sounds like shitt. It all sounds like Shitt.

dkg999

I would look at upgrading your CDP! I found that once you get into the $500 to $1200 CDP player range, the DAC's and SQ just get a lot better. I can also recommend the Rotel 1072 CDP as a very nice unit at the lower end of that range.

Upgrading, that's always the solution to every problem

AndyGwis

Bad recordings are the bane of the audio world's existence. Badly ripped MP3s on my iPod make me want to throw it against a wall, badly recorded CDs make me hate my favorite bands and find them unlistenable (RATM, etc.).

Likewise, well recorded CDs make me listen to stuff I would never listen to (classical, Dire Straits, Jack Johnson, etc.).

It's a cruel, cruel world. Gear only does so much, then it's up to the media to come through. I have tons of vinyl that sounds like crap, too, and I know it's not my gear. Probably need to clean it all up or throw it all way.

SACD is great. I'd rather listen to SACD of a group I don't like than a poorly recorded CD from a band I love.

F1nut

Considering that XM isn't hi-rez, I'd have to say your issues lay elsewhere.

AndyGwis

disney, are you trying to say hi-rez makes your other media sound like $hit, or hi-rez sounds like $hit?

My guess is the first. If you meant the second, you're problems run very deep as hi-rez CDs, SACD, and DVD-A sound better than anything else to me.

cfrizz

WTH are you smokin?:eek: The better cd players just make poorly mastered cd's WORSE!:eek: :eek:

I now have a few cd's I can no longer listen to & some I just outright dumped!

dkg999 wrote: »

I would look at upgrading your CDP! I found that once you get into the $500 to $1200 CDP player range, the DAC's and SQ just get a lot better. I can also recommend the Rotel 1072 CDP as a very nice unit at the lower end of that range.

Upgrading, that's always the solution to every problem

dkg999

Cfrizz - I have found that to be absolutely not true. As I said, a better or different CDP won't save them all. But I have found that the tube output stage in the Jolida tends to take some of the edge off some of my older poorly mastered/mixed CDP's and they are listenable. I use my Rotel 1072 CDP with a tubed pre and a tubed headphone amp, and many of my CD's from the mid-90's before they started mastering differently for CD's are OK to listen too on that rig. For the CD's I really like, I keep watching/waiting for the remasters, ie the new Led Zep remastered CD's are much better than my older ones!

reeltrouble1

hehehehehehe, so you going to drown the jukebox Steve?

RT1

madmax

When your sources sound like **** you should at least look into your preamp section for some form of mismatch. More than a few times I've found a pre at the heart of all the heartache. I'm not talking about either a good or a bad quality pre, just one which does not play nicely between a source and the amplifiers.
madmax

larryb52

I'd as soon have my old vinyl back & my old polks from the 70's might sound like crap but it is about the music I believe not how fancy the technology is...

reeltrouble1

madmax wrote: »

When your sources sound like **** you should at least look into your preamp section for some form of mismatch. More than a few times I've found a pre at the heart of all the heartache. I'm not talking about either a good or a bad quality pre, just one which does not play nicely between a source and the amplifiers.
madmax

oh no, there goes the oinker.....................:D splash..........

RT1

F1nut

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

oh no, there goes the oinker.....................:D splash..........

RT1

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I had the same vision.

Early B.

cfrizz wrote: »

WTH are you smokin?:eek: The better cd players just make poorly mastered cd's WORSE!:eek: :eek:

It depends. Some CDs sound worse with a better CDP, while others sound better.

More than likely, once you moved up to a high quality CDP, you're probably in the process of upgrading all of your other components, and you're more likely to invest in higher quality CDs anyway.

BTW -- hi-rez sucks!

OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but for years I've been sayin' that high quality gear makes hi-rez unnecessary. A good redbook CD vs. an XRCD in a good 2-channel system, and you'll begin to wonder why anyone would spend $25 - $50 on single CD.

reeltrouble1

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rt1

Danny Tse

Early B. wrote: »

A good redbook CD vs. an XRCD in a good 2-channel system, and you'll begin to wonder why anyone would spend $25 - $50 on single CD.

But a XRCD is just a good redbook CD. XRCD is just a brand used by JVC to market well-produced redbook CDs. I have CD that sounds better than the XRCD version of same title when played on the same player.

jakelm

Try listening to cassette....YUUUUUUUKKKKKK!!!!!!!

Listen to a cassette for 2 hours then go back to CD. Makes you appreciate, crappy MP3, makes you love Hi-rez CD

disneyjoe7

AndyGwis wrote: »

disney, are you trying to say hi-rez makes your other media sound like $hit, or hi-rez sounds like $hit?

My guess is the first. If you meant the second, you're problems run very deep as hi-rez CDs, SACD, and DVD-A sound better than anything else to me.

It is the first my DVD-Audio CD of Chicago 25 or 6 to 4 compared to the CD also of that song makes the DVD-Audio CD sound un-muffled. The CD of that song sounds MUFFLED. Almost going for Clock radio to Stereo, Night to Day.

disneyjoe7

madmax wrote: »

When your sources sound like **** you should at least look into your preamp section for some form of mismatch. More than a few times I've found a pre at the heart of all the heartache. I'm not talking about either a good or a bad quality pre, just one which does not play nicely between a source and the amplifiers.
madmax

reeltrouble1 wrote:

Originally Posted by madmax
When your sources sound like **** you should at least look into your preamp section for some form of mismatch. More than a few times I've found a pre at the heart of all the heartache. I'm not talking about either a good or a bad quality pre, just one which does not play nicely between a source and the amplifiers.
madmax

oh no, there goes the oinker..................... splash..........

RT1

F1nut wrote:

Originally Posted by reeltrouble1
oh no, there goes the oinker..................... splash..........

RT1

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I had the same vision.

You guys are toooo much today. No I like the Onk it's just the recording or source on the CD. I tested the sources also by Faith Hill Breathe CD I have 2 copies either one the CD changer optical out to the Onk or the Pioneer Elite 79Avi player with the analog out to the Onk sounded any different to me when I compared them.

jakelm

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

You guys are toooo much today. No I like the Onk it's just the recording or source on the CD. I tested the sources also by Faith Hill Breathe CD I have 2 copies either one the CD changer optical out to the Onk or the Pioneer Elite 79Avi player with the analog out to the Onk sounded any different to me when I compared them.

2 copies of Faith Hill?????:eek: :eek:

oh Lord, its worse than I thought.:o


......"Doctor, your needed in room 3 please"

disneyjoe7

jakelm wrote: »

Try listening to cassette....YUUUUUUUKKKKKK!!!!!!!

Listen to a cassette for 2 hours then go back to CD. Makes you appreciate, crappy MP3, makes you love Hi-rez CD

Funny I had an Akia 3 motor glass head Cassette player / recorder and a friend of mine used it to record CD's for his car which had a nice system in it. It was early 80's and CD's for cars just yet or too pricey. Which brings me back to about 85 or so I brought a Toshiba Car CD player which came in 2 pieces one you needed to hide under the dash or something, I think that may have been one of the first car players out there.

reeltrouble1

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

You guys are toooo much today. No I like the Onk it's just the recording or source on the CD. I tested the sources also by Faith Hill Breathe CD I have 2 copies either one the CD changer optical out to the Onk or the Pioneer Elite 79Avi player with the analog out to the Onk sounded any different to me when I compared them.

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..................so the whole Rack then?????? Splash.....

hey gimme those parasounds as they do not deserve to end up in Davey Jones locker, of course high rez sounds better it can't help but sound better than a redbook cd matched apples to apples as in CD to CD.

If you like DVD-A then get the Eagles Hotel California and A Night at the Opera when you want to Rock Out as bit with Mercury the little Queen princess. oweowe your my best friend...............

I dig Faith Hill, so kiss my grits, nothing wrong with a little country, now Steve we need to talk about some Vinyl.

RT1

disneyjoe7

Yes "Vinyl" is good for vertical blinds.

frreo1

16 bit resolution can only take sound so far. SACD definitely sounds better, as do music DVDs.

I have found that valve amplification does add a bit of lushness to the sound of bright recordings. The i-link out to something like a DA9000ES provides a very accurate sound from any source (including hi res CD).

So, if you do not like the sound, you more than likely need better electronics (cha-ching!)

F1nut

Music DVD's are not hi-rez. I believe most are DTS, which ain't nothing to write home about.

frreo1

Music DVDs are 24 bit/48Khz based, which is still better than 16 bit 44Khz, no matter how you slice it. Understand what you are trying to say, as multi channel has some compression, but the 2 channel recordings are not.

F1nut

When DTS-audio was introduced to the DVD specification, studios authored DVD-movies at DTS's full bitrate (1,536 kbit/s). Later movie titles were almost always encoded at a reduced bitrate of 768 kbit/s, ostensibly to increase the number of audio-tracks on the movie disc. At this reduced rate (768 kbit/s), DTS no longer retains audio transparency.

AC-3 and DTS are sometimes judged by their encoded bitrates. DTS proponents claim that the extra bits give higher fidelity and more dynamic range, providing a richer and more lifelike sound. But no conclusion can be drawn from their respective bitrates, as each codec relies on different coding tools and syntax to compress audio. When the DTS and AC-3 audiotracks on the same DVD are compared, some movies exhibit noticeable differences. A DTS track is often louder with less hiss, even at the same relative playback volume.

DTS alone doesn't sample at 24/96, it has to be specially marked DTS 24/96, which is still compressed. Much like DVD-A, there is no standard and no guarantee of higher fidelity.

Most decent CD players today upsample to 24/192, some higher and one from EMM upsamples to twice the sample rate of SACD!

frreo1

There are a fair bit of music DVD's that are 48Khz 24 bit PCM, and the sound on these is always better than the red book CD. The fact that players upscale (I own a Denon DVD 5910, so I know what you are referring to) can't add resolution that was not on source to begin with. The SACD encoded has a lot more data from the source than the standard CD (Savvy?)

When I listen to my son's music (Chris Isaak, Rammstien, Tom Petty), the 2 channel music DVD always sounds better than the respective CD of the same recordings.

disneyjoe7

F1nut wrote: »

Music DVD's are not hi-rez. I believe most are DTS, which ain't nothing to write home about.

You talking there's again a higher level I could go with a SACD