Don't believe everything you read on an audio forumWhy not second-hand records? Because I want to be the first owner. New is new.
Such a question for experts. What affects the sound of the CD player the most?
A user from the Polish audio forum wrote to me that the quality of the CD itself. I guess not silly, huh?
How do you know it was obvious no blind test was required? It is very possible to "hear" significant differences in sound which do not actually exist, just coming from your cognitive biases.Has anyone heard the Rotel RCD 965BX? So obvious that there were no need for a blind tests (not that I knew that was a thing way back then). But I liked it very much... for a while.
Of course I don't believe in everything, I have my brainDon't believe everything you read on an audio forum.
If the forum extolls the virtues of expensive cables and similar snake oil - don't believe anything you read there.![]()
Absolutely, I was expecting it to sound better than my old TEAC 3100, so that part could have been placebo, for sure. I agree with you there.How do you know it was obvious no blind test was required? It is very possible to "hear" significant differences in sound which do not actually exist, just coming from your cognitive biases.
The only people who say it is "obvious a blind test is not needed" are those who've never done a blind test, and found that suddenly the differences disappear.
You mean what has the biggest impact on sound between CD players?Of course I don't believe in everything, I have my brain
PS My question is still actual![]()
Not. Which is most responsible for the quality of the player. The quality of the sound being played. A laser, some other part, or maybe the quality of the CD itself, the release.You mean what has the biggest impact on sound between CD players?
Yes, that's what I asked.Quality of the sound being played?
So, you think the same, like this person from polish audio forum. CD is the most important.Undoubtably (IMO) the quality of the mastering.
But this I don't understand. After all, you wrote above that mastering is the most important thing. Mastering, so the quality of the recording on a CD. Or not?But not of the physical CD
The quality of the recording. Unless there is a defect in manufacturing or the CD is badly scratched, the CD should sound identical to the recording. This is not vinyl that degrades with each play.Why not second-hand records? Because I want to be the first owner. New is new.
Such a question for experts. What affects the sound of the CD player the most?
A user from the Polish audio forum wrote to me that the quality of the CD itself. I guess not silly, huh?
The mastering - the data that is actually put onto the disc is relevant.Yes, that's what I asked.
So, you think the same, like this person from polish audio forum. CD is the most important.
But this I don't understand. After all, you wrote above that mastering is the most important thing. Mastering, so the quality of the recording on a CD. Or not?
That is what he means by mastering. There are different masters for many CDs.Okey, what about loudness war?
As stated by @pvehling that is part of the mastering. Dynamic compression to increase loudness is an element of (bad) sound qualityOkey, what about loudness war?
I will have to buy CDs carefully.Dynamic compression to increase loudness is an element of (bad) sound quality
I don't know, but on the other forum is very interesting topic about loudness war:I bet the people on that Polish forum are talking about SHM? https://www.cdjapan.co.jp/feature/shmcd_allabout
Well that is some bullshit.I bet the people on that Polish forum are talking about SHM? https://www.cdjapan.co.jp/feature/shmcd_allabout
These are the famous last words before the blind testSo obvious that there were no need for a blind tests
Dynamic compression to increase loudness is an element of (bad) sound quality