Tascam CD Player

[jazzbo]

I have first hand experience with the Onkyo. My best friend in Austin picked one up, and stuck it in his system that I am very familiar with as I gave him the PeachTree amp he uses and the Decware speakers he uses. It's a nice cd player, for the price. There are many better ones, but not at that price point that I've heard.

I don't have experience with that Tascam model, but I do have experience with am older model that Steve Deckert of Decware modified with a tube outupt stage with volume control and tubed regulation. I never really enjoyed that modified version, it was too revealing, it made great recordings sound amazing in my system, but was not musical enough with less than stellar recordings. From the regular outs (not the Decware modded ones) it sounded. . . unexceptional. I think the Onkyo might have it beat by a bit, but I never compared the two of them in a system, and the Tascam is not the exact same model.

Actually, I believe the Zen ZCD-200 CD player did use the same Tascam CD-200 I'm considering. According to the Decware website, even the newer Zen ZCD-240 "uses the same high-quality TEAC-made CD drive designed for audio as other models in the CD-200 series." I'm assuming that this is an endorsement of the Tascam, at least as far as the transport is concerned.

I owned the Decware model before that. There is now a new one, there were three models released in all. I owned the first release. Never bothered with the others.

Edited April 20, 2015 by jazzbo

[Scott Dolan]

Oh, ok.

Still not sure how one makes a choice without perception (i.e. - processing of auditory input) being involved, if you have to choose there has to be the perception involved, even if the question is "can you hear a difference?", even if your answer is "no", it's because you're not perceiving one, not that there actually isn't one, you're just perceiving them to be identical (enough) but unless it's the actual human condition that the first time you hear something, you're going to consciously hear everything that is there, then...how 'bout that, huh, geez, had I only known.

Sure.

Now, a question. You have a $50 CD player, and a $500 CD player. Which one sounds better?

Price tags have a rather insidious way of "informing" our perception. If I had as much money sunk into my systems as Lon does into his, yeah, I'd be convinced they wash my balls while I sleep at night. And I already have MORE than enough wrapped up in my own systems. But the truth is far more mundane.

The terms "mp3" and "hi-resolution audio" also create their own perceptions.

The power of suggestion is at its strongest in the audio world. OK, maybe it's a half step behind religion. If that.

Best part of it being that there is no need to volley hypotheticals because there are scientific tools that can proven/disprove every last bit of it.

[Stefan Wood]

Shit, I was looking at a Tascam myself, since my venerable Harman Kardon Cdr20 kicks the bucket this past year. I dropped in to hear about opinions and all I read are fellow members flinging poo at each other and masturbation????

I'm going over to the Hoffman board, where I hear they are large and yes, spectacular.

And possibly find out more about this player/recorder.

[JSngry]

Oh, ok.

Still not sure how one makes a choice without perception (i.e. - processing of auditory input) being involved, if you have to choose there has to be the perception involved, even if the question is "can you hear a difference?", even if your answer is "no", it's because you're not perceiving one, not that there actually isn't one, you're just perceiving them to be identical (enough) but unless it's the actual human condition that the first time you hear something, you're going to consciously hear everything that is there, then...how 'bout that, huh, geez, had I only known.

Sure.

Now, a question. You have a $50 CD player, and a $500 CD player. Which one sounds better?

Price tags have a rather insidious way of "informing" our perception. If I had as much money sunk into my systems as Lon does into his, yeah, I'd be convinced they wash my balls while I sleep at night. And I already have MORE than enough wrapped up in my own systems. But the truth is far more mundane.

The terms "mp3" and "hi-resolution audio" also create their own perceptions.

The power of suggestion is at its strongest in the audio world. OK, maybe it's a half step behind religion. If that.

Best part of it being that there is no need to volley hypotheticals because there are scientific tools that can proven/disprove every last bit of it.

Oh, ok, now you're talking about business, not actual sound.

And really, you're not "proving" anything other that what happens when one person listens to one set of tests one time.

Again, business, nothing to do with developing one's ear to pay more attention, just as one has to do if one is to refine one's tone as musician, you ALWAYS are looking for the refinements (which are ALL about overtones) that most people can't hear at a casual listen but sure as hell ARE there, and if you can do it as a player, you can do it as a listener. Now if some people get delusional or projective about it, that's their business, and if you want to rant about the business end of it, that's your business, but as far as what you're saying having anything to do with the real, true, finer points of sound itself in both performance and reproduction, well, it comes off to be as a bit vulgarian at best, and fascist at worst.

Rabid hobbyist trolling is not serious listening, and serious listening to "audio" is not deeper musical comprehension.

[Scott Dolan]

Hahaha...ok.

Again, if it exists it can be proven.

As far as deep listening, I think we agree completely. That said, I seriously doubt there are many, if any, posters here who don't have finely tuned ears and minds. If they didn't they probably wouldn't have stuck with a genre like Jazz for very long. And from what I've seen, most here have serious listening systems. I take both of those equations as given here.

As for "business" I was citing an example of expectation bias. Not attempting to break down business models, which you and I would essentially on anyway.

No, I was speaking about quasi-religious proclamations such as a CD player which is "not musical enough" without any qualification or further explanation. That's not making anyone money here, but things of that nature can lead people down a bank account draining path.

[JSngry]

It's been proven that "it" exists.

What's also been proven is that not "everybody" can hear it, especially on the first time/a one-time hearing.

What's not been proven, and may not ever be (because who's got time for it?) is that long term listening to music, especially of repeated performances, can - not necessarily must, but can - result in a more refined processing of all the stimuli present. Not just what's "on the paper" but also what's, literally, in the air. And - can/does this refined perception then be carried over to new exposures?

If it can (and surely it can, see again how artists refine their tone (or, visually, palate), then any serious discussion of "audio" begins there, not with some stat sheet rattled about like industrial paragons of enforced mediocrity use to keep expectations down because the money's in providing expectations already met, not fostering potentials that may or may not be realistic. Although if in the audio game, that would seem to be the game, so this would seem to be the anti-audio game, but its not, it's the anti develop your ear game. You can only go so far and then stop it, you're deluding yourself, nothing there, COME DOWN FROM THERE.

All of which has nothing do to with music. It's like when somebody tells me they love watching baseball on hi-def and yeah, sure, who doesn't, and then they start referring to runs as "points and fly outs as "hits" and you realize they're not really enjoying baseball on hi-def, they're just enjoying a higher quality of pretty colors and shapes moving around in the shape of a baseball game. Big difference.

So, either you're looking to poke/prod Lon about his contentions (how is that not trolling, btw?) or else you're just making noise about statistics. Either way, how are you going to hear through somebody else's ears, and why does it bother you what they think they're hearing inside them, and, really, are you David Horowitz or somebody that gets upset where people spend their money? Did a hi-fi dealer run steal your girl when you were 22 or something like that and now you're sworn to revenge?

Now, if somebody tells me that they can't hear the form in a late Coltrane piece, well, we can talk about that, because I can show you where it is, that's objective. Here's the notes, here's the shapes, here's how they end up fitting together. Form. Whether you "hear" it or not, hey, not my worry, and whether you FEEL it or not, none of my business. Just don't be making all that "just a bunch of noise" noise, because unless you're deaf, EVERYTHING has the potential to be just a bunch of noise if you don't have the ability to process it. And that ability obviously can be developed.

But if a dude tells me that he likes one system over another because it's more "musical", hell, I know what that means in general, because I have my own sense of "musical" about things in general, and it's not static, it keeps developing, and one day's random notes may well be next month's sublime construction, and then back again and still back again yet again. But am I going to demand statistical "proof" as to what that "means"? Hell no, because in the first place, I don't care, I got my own music to listen to in my own way, in the second place, hey, follow your bliss, it ain't really none of my business, and in the third place, ok, we ARE playing with perceptions here, and there's a lot of factors besides simple statistics and blind tests. And in the fourth - and most important - place - IT'S NOT AN OBJECTIVE CLAIM BEING MADE. It's a purely subjective, personal observation being shared.

The only really objective concern about recorded music should be is it all there as best/completely as possible, and that's a game for all those type of lab coat guys who used to write columns in Stereo Review and all that, TASTE the oscilloscope!. Otherwise, it's yours to do with what you want, and if you're one of the relative few who really can get to hear all that's there, then beautiful, that's something to be thankful for. and if you're not, your ear can still grow. And if you're one of those whose ear can't/won't grow, hell, I don't know....throw statistics around, maybe.

And what nobody is talking about yet is that sound is vibration, and the human body (including the brain) receives & processes vibrations in a lot of different ways. The human body (also including the brain) also has a remarkable ability to evolve along "use it or lose it" lines as well, and although not an immediate concern, "dumbing down" source sounds is not an evolutionary game I'd undertake just to score some points in a pissing contest. We're already doing that with food, and...hmmmm.

[Scott Dolan]

Again, going out of your way to turn a paragraph worth of opinion into an epic adventure.

No, "it" hasn't been proven. And let's not play make believe by drowning it in flowery rhetoric. The only thing proven is that you also have no concerns whatsoever with empirical evidence, and faith-based claims are enough to satisfy you.

And sure, it is subjective to a certain degree, I suppose. But if I make claims, I offer further explanation as to what I'm talking about, and how I came to the conclusions that I did.

I also don't make a habit of playing the knight in shining armor for people who are perfectly capable of defending themselves just because the other person is my enemy.

I'll also note that you completely side-stepped my question about the two CD players. And obviously have use for the reality of expectation bias.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Dolan

[JSngry]

Ah, taste the noise!

I believe there was a thread here not too long ago that showed results that a certain, small-ish percentage of participants in one of those lab coat things COULD consistently differentiate between higher res samples and lower res. So what are they, freaks of nature? If so kill them freaks, they fuck up our truth.

And we do know that the overtone series DOES go beyond the range of audibility, just as sound frequencies can dip into the sub audible range. If you can't hear it, does that meant it's still not real?

No it does not mean that. It's very real. It exists. It's just not easily/noticeably "heard", and past certain points either way, it's definitely not "heard". But is it still there. Of course it is. Science shows it to be. Not "faith", science.

So tell me this - there are vibrations happening, and bodies in the way of them. Do those bodies just kill those vibrations, go away sound waves, drop dead? Is that the way science works?

If these super-/sub-audible frequencies don't get blocked by our Brick-Eared bodies, what happens to them? And can- CAN - that have some extra-audiblity effect on our perception of what we "hear".

Now, this, I do not know. Do you? This would be science after all.

I also wonder - wonder, not claim - if a parallel situation exists with the spectrum of light waves, more vibrations for the body to process, Are we not already using different light spectrums for certain "behavioral control" ends? Not necessarily anything insidious, just a recognition that the brain/body processes different spectrums differently.

If you got the science for any of this, I'd seriously like to see/explore it. But if not, then you're not really addressing the issue to its fullest, I'd say, in which case...noise. Low ceiling noise.

I'll address the CD player question right now:

You have a $50 CD player, and a $500 CD player. Which one sounds better?

I don't know. What did I pay $50 for and what did I pay $500 for?

You can pay anything for anything if you know where to look, if you know what I mean.

So the question as posited has no meaning. "Sounds" good, though!

[Scott Dolan]

Here's another smallish percentage of audiophiles, and the results of their own ABX. http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

Guess they just haven't "learned how to listen" properly.

As for the CD question you still avoid for obvious reasons, it's a question of perception vs reality (which you are fully aware of). Any audio enthusiast is going to automatically have the perception planted in his mind that the $500 unit is far superior. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But, I can guarantee one thing, it isn't 10x better. Yet, all it may take is someone telling a potential buyer how "musical" it is, and waahlaah. Or how smooth and buttery the midrange is… Or how transparent it is… Or how they hear no jitter ...

Buzzwords. Bullshit. It's all the same thing.

Transducers can be referred to as "musical", due to response speed (especially when it comes to subwoofers since their main purpose wasn't meant for music). But an electronic component?

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Dolan

[JSngry]

The CD player question was "answered" (more accurately, "addressed", since the question as asked was meaningless, as would be any specific answer to it), as asked, and fully.

Your assumption that

Any audio enthusiast is going to automatically have the perception planted in his mind that the $500 unit is far superior. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But, I can guarantee one thing, it isn't 10x better.

presupposes a translation of a particular nature by two parties also of a particular nature, neither of which was either referred to in the asking or relevant to the answer of the question as asked.

And yes, if I'm dumb enough to pay $50 to some crackhead for a broken ass Discman from 1998 that's got, like one spin left in it, and if I then go pay $500 for a fresh out the box "known quantity" CD player from a reputable dealer, that's pretty likely to be more or less 10X better a deal in ALL kinds of ways.

But...that was not what you asked. If the same crackhead comes up to me and offers me the straight out the box $500 player for $50 and what I got at home is a $500 POS that I got snookered into buying, then hell yeah, the $50 player, please.

and, please, let's not pretend that people don't buy hot audio equipment from crackheads.

A fine point hinging on tangential details outside, perhaps, of your normative expectations (or mine), of course, and of course the question was asked with an expectation of a mutually similar experiential frame of reference, but...did somebody say "science"? Yes, I believe somebody did.

So, yes, the CD player question has been addressed. Q.E.D.

What has not been addressed are my questions about the potential long term effect of various real psycho-accoustic experiences. A request for information based on real science based on real phenomena. So we know one way or the other? Is anybody asking/considering? What, exactly?

What has been offered in its stead is more anger directed at audiophillia. Emotion based in real marketing based on...who knows what. But definitely not using one answer to build another question, instead using one answer to build a wall of Certainty.

Meaning, I will assume, that you have no answers to what I am asking, and, most assuredly, I have no interest in the broken record as a response to everything approach.

But apparently, looking for real answers to real phenomena lasting past an immediate window of exposure = "faith", and looking to justify rage on the basis of a wide collection of wide but shallow collection of data (and apparently dismissing/ignoring anything that suggests a more nuanced reality) = "science".

And, apparently, a question addressed is a question avoided.

Huh. How 'bout that.

So, no conversation here, the floor is yours, as is the ceiling, both of which I'm sure have been clearly marked for your listening and ranting pleasure.

[Scott Dolan]

What has not been addressed are my questions about the potential long term effect of various real psycho-accoustic experiences. Science.

Post the link/s to the article/s and I'll read them and give you my thoughts.