Marantz CD6007 sounded bad - advice wanted for new cd player

[Leon74]

TBH, I can't tell from your introductory manifesto what you perceived to be wrong, the CD player or the amplifier.

The sound.

 

[JeremyFife]

Nothing new to me, I do know about blind testing, perception bias etc. And that certainly plays a role.
I am not entrenched nor defending a certain position. I just know what I heard myself and I am trying to find an explanation for it.

Ok cool.

Start with this:

#1 measured difference between all (most, I've not read them all) DACs on this site are below human audible thresholds. The differences cannot be heard. Amps less so, but still pretty much.

#2 well designed electronics do not change the frequency response of an audio signal (within audible thresholds). If the FR does not change then you cannot hear changes that are attributed to FR (like 'warm')

#3 people are subject to perception bias

Based on that, the most likely reason we hear differences (and we all do) is #3

 

[MAB]

Catalog of blind tests for instance, DACs, amps, etc.

Catalogue of blind tests

I thought this thread on Head-Fi was a valiant effort to put together blind tests that have been performed over the years. Given that there have been many more (I'm thinking Archimago's tests, among others), it would be fun to open source a complete list...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And Floyd Toole's book I linked, he is a great writer, forums are hard to sort out. But you already said you are pre-aware of all this, like you don't need to read his book.

The sound.

Funny thing, by your description you could have verified 'the sound' with a $30 USB measuring mic, or even a cellphone's mic and free audio analyzer app. Would have taken less than 20 mins of coaxing answers out of ChatGPT.

 

[MAB]

I am sorry, I rest my ChatGPT's case with you if you can't do better than that, I am repeating myself ChatGPT: How can a test about amplifiers from 1987 with one Cd player say something about dacs?

I made some essential edits.

Like I said, no idea if it was CD player or amp, your intro was unspecific and vague. And you then demonstrated you are not clear on what a DAC does, so I thought I would start small.

You should research the forum you wish to post on before you go to ChatGPT. Any forum. Sounds like you want instant answers. Audio has a long history. People thinking things sound in a way they actually don't.

People been making the same mistake as you since well before ChatGPT, digital audio, etc.

Audio Listening Test That Fooled the Hollywood Sapphire Group

Some of the most highly trained audiophiles in the industry were asked to do a blind “A-B” listening comparison test of two audio circuits. Were they able to hear a difference, or were they fooled?

www.audioholics.com

 

[Leon74]

Ok cool.

Start with this:

#1 measured difference between all (most, I've not read them all) DACs on this site are below human audible thresholds. The differences cannot be heard. Amps less so, but still pretty much.

#2 well designed electronics do not change the frequency response of an audio signal (within audible thresholds). If the FR does not change then you cannot hear changes that are attributed to FR (like 'warm')

#3 people are subject to perception bias

Based on that, the most likely reason we hear differences (and we all do) is #3

#1 Radiation is undetectable for humans, too, yet it can severely affect them, so numbers themselves don't convince me.
I'd like to see randomised double blind tests.

I am not saying you are wrong: I am just saying there is not enough evidence to take any stance (or at least I believe so).

 

[Leon74]

Catalog of blind tests for instance, DACs, amps, etc.

Catalogue of blind tests

I thought this thread on Head-Fi was a valiant effort to put together blind tests that have been performed over the years. Given that there have been many more (I'm thinking Archimago's tests, among others), it would be fun to open source a complete list...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And Floyd Toole's book I linked, he is a great writer, forums are hard to sort out. But you already said you are pre-aware of all this, like you don't need to read his book.

Funny thing, by your description you could have verified 'the sound' with a $30 USB measuring mic, or even a cellphone's mic and free audio analyzer app. Would have taken less than 20 mins of coaxing answers out of ChatGPT.

Please give me the blind listening test for dacs, if it exists. It would be interesting to have a look at.

 

[JeremyFife]

#1 Radiation is undetectable for humans, too, yet it can severely affect them, so numbers themselves don't convince me.
I'd like to see randomised double blind tests.

I am not saying you are wrong: I am just saying there is not enough evidence to take any stance (or at least I believe so).

*Entrenched*

We cannot see some radiation but we certainly experience the affects - sunburn from UV

We can also predict the effect of UV radiation (science) and we can measure it.

You are looking for something that is not there, and at the same time you are ignoring the evidence about what is there.

(Edit ... UV radiation, not IV!)

 

[MAB]

Please give me the blind listening test for dacs, if it exists. It would be interesting to have a look at.

DAC blind test: NO audible difference whatsoever

(UPDATES BELOW) That blind test was long due, it's now done. Started with a 30$ unit (Fiio) against a 3000$ one (Forssell) and once SPL-matched (massive gain difference), no one could tell the difference in a ABX test. Then, we switched to a different set-up, using a pair of B&W CM9 speakers...

www.diyaudio.com

This one is well executed, the levels are matched (which is super critical). They documented enough of the test to give confidence that they took seriously the controls necessary to perform such a trial.

Archimago has level matched files for you to ABX in Foobar, or go and use DeltaWave to directly compare the null output of two DACs.

I think you may be on your own here. I can't see good faith in your posts, and now you have moved from argument by anecdote to argument by analogy.

 

[VintageFlanker]

for what it is worth, according to chatgpt:

... It's worth absolutely nothing.

 

[VintageFlanker]

You are incorrect.

That's actually one of the (very) few things OP may be correct about. Marantz D/A filters are usually very aggressive on FR and could translate into audible realm :

Marantz SACD 30n Measurements (SACD Player, DAC & Streamer)

Marantz SACD 30n Measurements Hi folks, Here is my objective analysis of the Marantz SACD 30n. This sample in particular has been gently loaned to me by Sound United France directly. It is a versatile piece of gear, being not only a SACD/CD player, but also a standalone DAC and a streamer...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[MAB]

That's actually one of the (very) few things OP may be correct about. Marantz D/A filters are usually very aggressive on FR and could translate into audible realm :
View attachment 410226

Marantz SACD 30n Measurements (SACD Player, DAC & Streamer)

Marantz SACD 30n Measurements Hi folks, Here is my objective analysis of the Marantz SACD 30n. This sample in particular has been gently loaned to me by Sound United France directly. It is a versatile piece of gear, being not only a SACD/CD player, but also a standalone DAC and a streamer...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Except, that's not horrible sounding. I mentioned filters early, but we rolled right over that in a heartbeat. Would have been interesting to see if OP could hear the difference between filter settings, blind or sighted I don't even care at this point.

 

[Leon74]

DAC blind test: NO audible difference whatsoever

(UPDATES BELOW) That blind test was long due, it's now done. Started with a 30$ unit (Fiio) against a 3000$ one (Forssell) and once SPL-matched (massive gain difference), no one could tell the difference in a ABX test. Then, we switched to a different set-up, using a pair of B&W CM9 speakers...

www.diyaudio.com

This one is well executed, the levels are matched (which is super critical). They documented enough of the test to give confidence that they took seriously the controls necessary to perform such a trial.

Archimago has level matched files for you to ABX in Foobar, or go and use DeltaWave to directly compare the null output of two DACs.

I think you may be on your own here. I can't see good faith in your posts, and now you have moved from argument by anecdote to argument by analogy.

Sorry, while nowadays even scientific studies published in famous peer-reviewed journals often lack reproducibility ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis , https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 ) I certainly don't go by a test an amateur has done at home.
You also forget to mention the remark of a moderator:

ABX is statisically incapable of determining 2 DUT are the same.

 

[MAB]

I certainly don't go by a test an amateur has done at home.

And you expect me to believe you and your chatbot.
You have everything you need to investigate yourself.
Goodbye.

 

[Leon74]

That's actually one of the (very) few things OP may be correct about. Marantz D/A filters are usually very aggressive on FR and could translate into audible realm :
View attachment 410226

Marantz SACD 30n Measurements (SACD Player, DAC & Streamer)

Marantz SACD 30n Measurements Hi folks, Here is my objective analysis of the Marantz SACD 30n. This sample in particular has been gently loaned to me by Sound United France directly. It is a versatile piece of gear, being not only a SACD/CD player, but also a standalone DAC and a streamer...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Merci, but the sound differences I heard between my old ('90s) Sony receiver and my old Akai CD 27 or an old Philips CD player connected to it versus the modern Marantz Stereo 70S amplifier and CD6007 cd player (always using the same loudspeakers: Visaton Tristar 4 ohm) were much bigger than the differences between the filter settings you mention. I tried them but I was unsure whether I could hear a difference between them. So there must be another explanation.

 

[Leon74]

And you expect me to believe you and your chatbot.
You have everything you need to investigate yourself.
Goodbye.

No, I don't expect you to believe anything at all, but you seem prejudiced. My husband and I heard a very clear, undeniable difference between the different devices and I am just trying to find a credible explanation. The only thing you are doing is trying to discredit my experience without backing up your opinion/statement with solid proof.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Brains do work like that: I remember a friend of my brother got beaten up by foreigners and then he started hating foreigners. Learning by experience. Why do you think they use words like "neural networks" and "machine learning"? Mind you, I am not saying AI and brains are the same, but they have definitely things in common. It's just hard to accept for many people I guess.

Some of us here have worked in ML, AI solution design etc. You are demonstrating a shallow understanding of AI internal functions. Take my advice - only trust the result if you have access to information about the training data and the choices made to minimise bias. AI tools are extremely useful when used in a constrained manner, in the right context. Asking about audio from ChatGPT is an unsafe usage.

 

[Leon74]

Some of us here have worked in ML, AI solution design etc. You are demonstrating a shallow understanding of AI internal functions. Take my advice - only trust the result if you have access to information about the training data and the choices made to minimise bias. AI tools are extremely useful when used in a constrained manner, in the right context. Asking about audio from ChatGPT is an unsafe usage.

How can my understanding of AI's internal functions be not shallow if even professionals don't know anymore what exactly is going on in complex algorithms?
Much ado about nothing. Some people seemingly cannot understand that AI is not simply a computer performing programmed rules. It isn't called "intelligence" for nothing: with intelligence comes opinion. It's just like in the real word with humans: some people's opinions you value more than other people's opinions and depending on your own belief set, you tend to believe some beliefs of others more and some beliefs less. Nothing new. Just treat AI like another human and also ask yourself whether you asked a question that can be objectively answered or not.

 

[mhardy6647]

Remember, the internet is full of misinformation and disinformation, and these AI systems base their results on what they see on the internet.

[emphasis added]
Remember, folks, we're on the internet!
ahem
just kiddin' -- it is indeed full of nonsense.
Pilate, in this context, at least, was probably right.

 

[JeremyFife]

Merci, but the sound differences I heard between my old ('90s) Sony receiver and my old Akai CD 27 or an old Philips CD player connected to it versus the modern Marantz Stereo 70S amplifier and CD6007 cd player (always using the same loudspeakers: Visaton Tristar 4 ohm) were much bigger than the differences between the filter settings you mention. I tried them but I was unsure whether I could hear a difference between them. So there must be another explanation.

Ok, I'll try to address your actual question - an explanation for why your Marantz system sounded so different. Assuming nothing else (source, speakers) changed.

You have already confirmed that the difference is not due to filters in the Marantz DAC.

You describe the difference as "warm and muddy". That indicates change to the FR and added distortion.

Marantz is well designed and made gear. As pointed out earlier, Marantz gear does roll off the treble slightly so that could explain some 'warmth' although you have already discounted that in your filter comment.

I am left with two options;
One of your Marantz components was broken.

Or, perception bias - you knew that you changed something so you heard a difference when there was none. That applies to what your husband heard too - we give each other subconscious cues that influence each other.

I can't think of anything else that does not rely on magical thinking.

 

[pinger]

I think Leon is reading too many audio magazines. And using a quote from an Audio Brand "guru" or whomever proves nothing. What's next a quote from a cable company spokesman? Properly operating digital components (CD, DAC) as well as Solid State amps all sound the same. Of course audio brand reps are going to say their components sound different (better). Thats the sales pitch. And the mags have to agree to keep the ad revenue coming in. You dont bite the hand that feeds you