Delhi Meet - April 07

Hey Doc,

Congrats on the Proac's. Please do let me know how they sound with the Cyrus set up.
Happy listening.

Cheers
SNV

Hi Jay,

Aruna Prasad had send this pair in Delhi and he obliged with home audition. I liked them & bought them. The other members who listen to it on Sunday will post their objective opinion later.

Hello Doc,

Hope you guys have a GREAT time.

Would love feedback on a comparision between he Cyrus and Denon disc spinners ( both playing the same CD )

Cheers

Hi !

Viren, Kamal & Rahul Pandit were here today. I'm sure they will post their objective assessment of the complete gear. We were so engrossed in the music that we forgot to even play and compare Denon (with Cyrus). But I will post that comparision soon.

Hi Sanjay,

Thanks for a lovely morning/afternoon session, leisurely spent listening to good music!

I must say the ProAC speakers have complemented the Cyrus electronics very well. There was a sense of flow to the music that was very enjoyable.

And the occassional trip in nostalgia in listening to some "golden oldies"!

Viren.

Amp_Nut schrieb:

Hello Doc, Hope you guys have a GREAT time. Would love feedback on a comparision between he Cyrus and Denon disc spinners ( both playing the same CD ) Cheers

Dear Amp_Nut !

For you I did a wierd A-B comparision of disc spinners:

-Disc - Diana Krall - The Look of Love (SACD)
-Denon played the SACD layer
-Cyrus played the CD layer

And what came out of the speakers was startling for my ears. Cyrus beat Denon hands down even though the latter was playing a much better format. I couldn't believe my ears.

I'm sure Jay Nihalani would be thrilled to read this.

Wait for Kamal to post his detailed and objective review.

Sanjay,
I had a great time on Sunday listening to a very impressive setup. The ProAc 140 sounded very nice and detailed even though it had yet to be burnt in. I especially enjoyed Lata Mangeshkar's 'Paani Paani Re' from the movie Machis. It was mesmerising to say the least. Viren, Kamal and Sanjay were kind enough to explain differences in the recording of music to me. I also carried home a lot of improvements for my speaker stands which I hope to carry out over the weekend.
A Sunday afternoon well spent.

Dear Amp_Nut ! For you I did a wierd A-B comparision of disc spinners: -Disc - Diana Krall - The Look of Love (SACD) -Denon played the SACD layer -Cyrus played the CD layer And what came out of the speakers was startling for my ears. Cyrus beat Denon hands down even though the latter was playing a much better format. I couldn't believe my ears.

Thanks for your effort & feedback.

However, I believe (speculate ? ) that more often than not, the content on the same Hybrid SACD, is equalised differently, for each layer. The 2 layers sound COMPLETELY different...

That is why I had originaly requested :

Would love feedback on a comparision between he Cyrus and Denon disc spinners ( both playing the same CD )

I ofcourse expect both CD players to sound Completely different... the Cyrus far more rhythemic and energetic than the Denon....

Manufacturers often establish and maintain a 'house sound '

Cheers

Amp_Nut,

I'll do that today and let you know the outcome.

SDhawan schrieb:

Amp_Nut schrieb: Cheers And what came out of the speakers was startling for my ears. Cyrus beat Denon hands down even though the latter was playing a much better format. I couldn't believe my ears. .

Sir,

That is a 'Lovely Statement'
Better Format ??

You need 2 CD's.
Same Lot.
Same Pressing
Same Music - obviosly.
Play the 2 CD's in 2 CD Players.
Use the same Power Cords & Same Interconnects. So you need 2 power cords & 2 interconnects of the same length and same make.
Then change on the fly @ pre amp stage.
This is the right way to compare 2 CD Players.
Have done it several times.

Try and have 2 to 3 audiophiles over too.
Let all the persons do it, alone, with no one ense in the room. Discuss the results after all have finished, else one persons opinion will affect the other persons 'listening'

Just a suggestion.
Worth giving a try.

Bhagwan,

I know what you mean. That would be exact scientific comparision. However, for routine daily life situations just a direct comparision is enough.

SDhawan schrieb:

Bhagwan, However, for routine daily life situations just a direct comparision is enough.

I am sure it is;
If it 'floats your boat' I love it, but I do the A/B in the manner that I specified above.
Some day, you too may try other ways to compare and evaluate different components that you will put your money into, or even gear that comes to your place for evaluation.

It is just that different components cost so much and the difference are so minute, that unless you do it very very precisely, the differences may or may not show up.

Besides, CD Players are the easiest things to compare, pre amps & power amps are so much more difficult to assess. Speakers are in a diffierent league all together [they need to be set up and tuned - bass has to dial in to the room].

But, at least try it once [i.e. the way I suggested] and see, wht do you stand to loose ?

SDhawan schrieb:

Dear Amp_Nut ! For you I did a wierd A-B comparision of disc spinners: -Disc - Diana Krall - The Look of Love (SACD) -Denon played the SACD layer -Cyrus played the CD layer And what came out of the speakers was startling for my ears. Cyrus beat Denon hands down even though the latter was playing a much better format. I couldn't believe my ears. I'm sure Jay Nihalani would be thrilled to read this. Wait for Kamal to post his detailed and objective review.

you'd better believe your ears, Doc! SACD is ANYTHING but a better format. Looks like the audio industry marketing might have had an effect on you - They would like you to believe that SACD out-does redbook CD but it is not so in 99% of the cases.
I, too, tried CD (in my CD player) versus SACD (in a Sony 777ES player) & my CD player killed the sound reproduced from the SACD. We played hybrid SACDs & 1-layer SACDs. The redbook CD won each time. Even the owner of the Sony 777ES SACD player acknowledged this.
It is no wonder that SACD has all but died out. Another pull-wool-over-the-end-user's-eyes gimmick to extract even more money for program material put to rest!

I beg to differ. In fact, I have still not reached a difinitive conclusion on whether SACD is beter.... if at all, I would lean towards the SACD being superior !

Bombaywalla, which is your CD player that you compared with the SONY ?

Using 2 totally different CD & SACD players, and judging the FORMAT .... CD vs SACD is hardly fair.

I have often seen this approach and conclusion from persons who do not have SACD reproduction capabilities...

Even on the SAME CD player I am unable to arrive at a verdict, because as I have stated in an earlier post, I suspect that the SACD and CD layers on the SAME (Hybrid) disc are equalised differently.

Your comments have provoked me, because just last night, I spent a couple of hours at a Friend's place doing an A-B-C comparision, between a Wadia CD Player - Raysonic 128 CD Player and my Denon 2900 Univesal player.

Raysonic 128 :

http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews/raysonic/cd128.html



I used a Hybrid SACD - 'ROUND MIDNIGHT by Jaime Valle for comparison.

The main comparision was between the Raysonic and the Denon ( somewhat comparable prices )

The Raysonic was better in the midrange and sounded more relaxed in complex passages. The Denon in the midrange and HF was stighly more 'Hi-Fi is ' (I mean that negatively) and a touch more 'over-etched' in the same passages.

Switching the Denon to the SACD layer, removed the negatives of the CD layer on the same player, and the Denon playing the SACD layer was atleast as good as the Raysonic on these passages, in the areas mentioned.

I must add that the Raysonic was used without upsampling. When upsampling was switched in the sound moved towards the direction of the SACD sound... more delicate ( less etched ) HF, and a better flow.

Well the difference of opinion on standard vs Upsampling has not concluded either, and IMHO it never will.

To each theiir own...

Yes... the Raysonic and Denon were compared with the SAME mains cord, interconnects and even physical mount and position.

Only the (Valve output ) Raysonic 128 had more time to warm up and sing... more than 30 minutes before the 1st note was played...

( The beer brand did change, though )

Amp_Nut schrieb:

I beg to differ.

well, it ain't the 1st time! And, it won't be the last time either.
In fact, I recall from another thread where you yourself mentioned that you often disagree with your other local audiophile friends.

Amp_Nut schrieb:

Bombaywalla, which is your CD player that you compared with the SONY ?

I do not think that it is pertinent to the discussion as the topic being discussed is the superiority or lack of SACD vs. CD format.
if SACD (or any other digital music format) is deemed to be superior then, to me, it is superior across the board no matter which player the music is played in. The only requirement should be that price-wise comparable players should be compared for their reproduced sonic performance. Now, on point (price), I will concede that the comparison was not fair. One of the players was in a much higher price bracket. We did not intend this comparison to be this way - it just happened so. In my little audiophile friends circle here this was the only person who had a multi-format player. So, there was no choice unfortunately. I agree that it would have even more eye opening (both ways) if the comparison was done using 2 similar price bracket players.

Amp_Nut schrieb:

Using 2 totally different CD & SACD players, and judging the FORMAT .... CD vs SACD is hardly fair.

you seem to indicate that this is because it would bring into the pix the variable of the player itself, correct?
So, the under-lying assumption is that a single dual format player (like the Denon you have, for example) has the same amount of blood, sweat & tears poured into the SACD implementation as it has in the CD implementation? How true is this?
CD & SACD formats cannot share anything between them so the hardware is all different to the best of my knowledge. Plus, CD hardware has gone thru over 20 years of iterations but in the chip sets & in the CD player implentations. SACD is very, very young in comparison. We all know the compromises audio amp designers make when making a stereo version amp & how much more freedom they have when they can make a mono-block version of the same model.
In the same way, I think that squeezing SACD & CD into the same chassis must be forcing compromises.

Amp_Nut schrieb:

I have often seen this approach and conclusion from persons who do not have SACD reproduction capabilities...

now, now, be nice!
civil discourse is allowed but not civil disobedience (of group discussions. )

Amp_Nut schrieb:

Your comments have provoked me

yup, they sure seem to have! it was not my intention. I can confidently assure you that.
I'd also like to add that neither is this post supposed to. I'm UNWILLING to get into a tu-tu-main-main with you on this topic. So, if there is a feeling that it might go this way, I vote that we both exercise self-control & pull back & maintain the peace on this forum.

Amp_Nut schrieb:

The Raysonic was better in the midrange and sounded more relaxed in complex passages. The Denon in the midrange and HF was stighly more 'Hi-Fi is ' (I mean that negatively) and a touch more 'over-etched' in the same passages.

the description of the Denon seems to be consistent with what I have heard over 1-2 generations of Denon products. This hi-if-ish & etched sound seems to be their "house" sound. There are many here that I know that love to call it "hi-freq details" when it actually is distortion they are listening to.

Amp_Nut schrieb:

Well the difference of opinion on standard vs Upsampling has not concluded either, and IMHO it never will.

yes, this is another one of those "religious" wars that will probably last as long as audiophiles do.
I have a relatively cheap Scott Nixon non-OS DAC that, when connected to my 1998 Sony DVD player, will give my much more expensive upsampling CD player a bloody good run for its money. it becomes a complex mind-game to justify the more expensive upsampling player.
And all of this under less than ideal rack conditions for the DVD-non-OS combination & cheap but good sounding cabling. I just wonder what the end result would have been if this DVD player would have been modified & if the cables were of comparable quality??

Amp_Nut schrieb:

To each their own...

yes, YMMV, FWIW, IMHO, etc.


I think that you should pop over to Audioasylum & read the heavy-duty discourse on the SACD vs CD subject. Read comments by people who are more learned about this matter than both you & I. Two such people are Thorsten & audioengr. Ray Kimber is a frequent contributor to these threads but he has openly endorsed SACD as a manuf & so I view his comments as biased. Also pop over to Dan Lavry's website: http://www.lavryengineering.com/supportpage.html & read some of his white papers on sampling theory.
There is more discourse on this subject on Audiogon but I don't know if it is as informative as that on Audioasylum - the Audiogoners are more a fanatical bunch that zealously guard their opinions but are much slower to come forth with technical details as compared to Audioasylumers.

Hi Bombaywalla...

Amp_Nut wrote: I beg to differ. well, it ain't the 1st time! And, it won't be the last time either. In fact, I recall from another thread where you yourself mentioned that you often disagree with your other local audiophile friends.

I dont see that in itself to be a bad thing ... do you ?

you seem to indicate that this is because it would bring into the pix the variable of the player itself, correct?

Yup

So, the under-lying assumption is that a single dual format player (like the Denon you have, for example) has the same amount of blood, sweat & tears poured into the SACD implementation as it has in the CD implementation? How true is this?

NOT my assumption At All !

In fact my thought is that a (say ) Rs 50K Universal player should be compared for its CD alone playback quality with a Cheaper CD player, because .... as you correctly point out, part resources ( money spent ) HAVE been diverted for the SACD capability.

How much less ? That is an individual's call of how much he would like to pay for say SACD + DVD-A playback capability. My personal call would be

A Rs 50K Univesal player be called on to match the playback capability of a Rs 35K CD Player. Ofcourse this is MY Personal opinion, and someone else may have a different judgenemt call....

Home Theatre fans may take a similar call for the Universal player's capability to play Multi Channel DVDs, and if I was a Home Theatre + CD + DVD-a + SACD buff, I would probably allocate even less for CD only playback.

In the same way, I think that squeezing SACD & CD into the same chassis must be forcing compromises.

Ofcourse.

Actually, even the Laser assembly is different for CD only and CD + SACD use, so the differences in performance .... and maybe even compromises begin right at the start of the chain.

yes, this is another one of those "religious" wars that will probably last as long as audiophiles do.

So true, so true.

I also recall debates between the multi-bit vs 1 Bit digital processing.....

Thanks also for your pointers on the CD vs SACD debate.

Any specific link for the Audioasylum debate ?

Have a nice weekend...

Cheers

[quote="Amp_Nut"]
I dont see that in itself to be a bad thing ... do you ?
[/quote]

no, I don't, in general.
( when one person tends to disagree often with the others in a group, usually an argument ensues )

[quote="Amp_Nut"]
NOT my assumption At All !

In fact my thought is that a (say ) Rs 50K Universal player should be compared for its CD alone playback quality with a Cheaper CD player, because .... as you correctly point out, part resources ( money spent ) HAVE been diverted for the SACD capability.

How much less ? That is an individual's call of how much he would like to pay for say SACD + DVD-A playback capability. My personal call would be

A Rs 50K Univesal player be called on to match the playback capability of a Rs 35K CD Player. Ofcourse this is MY Personal opinion, and someone else may have a different judgenemt call....

Home Theatre fans may take a similar call for the Universal player's capability to play Multi Channel DVDs, and if I was a Home Theatre + CD + DVD-a + SACD buff, I would probably allocate even less for CD only playback.
[/quote]
OK, thanx for the clarification.

[quote="Amp_Nut"]
Any specific link for the Audioasylum debate ?
[/quote]
I'm sure that I can come up with some links for you if I dig a bit. However, this might be Monday & no earlier. I'll try to provide some links....
In the meantime if you search for SACD in the "Digital" asylum you will have more hits than you could shake a stick at!

[quote="Amp_Nut"]
Have a nice weekend...
Cheers[/quote]
Thank you, sir! And you as well.
it is a simply gorgeous weekend here & one to really enjoy. Golf is planned on Sun with friends.

Amp_Nut schrieb:

Any specific link for the Audioasylum debate ? Cheers

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?forum=hirez&m=223889 --> this one is in favour of SACD & also points to some white papers written by Sony. Lots of venomous words spat out by "Teresa"!!

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?forum=hirez&m=214639 --> this one provides a link to an AES paper comparing DVD-A vs. SACD. Slightly off-topic but might be an interesting read.

Geez !

The http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?forum=hirez&m=223889 - link is toooooo long...

I ran out of patience... 10,500 Words !

Thanks for the link anyway...

Amp_Nut schrieb:

Geez ! The http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?forum=hirez&m=223889 - link is toooooo long... I ran out of patience... 10,500 Words ! Thanks for the link anyway...

yes, I'm afraid that link is very long - there has been much discourse on the SACD vs. CD subject & that link was just 1 of many that I ran into. Of course, there is no need to read the whole thing. In that link, the salient feature was a link to the original SACD proposal by a Sony Japanese audio scientest.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?forum=digital&m=121221

here is another thread. Contrary to the thread's heading, you will read a # of people who are for & who are against SACD being "clearly" superior.
Some good comments by some grounded people like Bob Neill, Todd Krieger, Chris Redmond & a very imformative (but short) post by Al Sekela.
Once again, I notice (like you pointed out earlier) that those that have SACD capability defend their purchase, those that do not are more cautious of adopting it.

The thread is long but reasonably fun to read.

Hey Guys, sorry I started this controversy about SACD vs. CD but I did not intend to.

All I meant was that Cyrus CDP played the CD layer even better than the Denon Universal player played the SACD layer. It just means that Cyrus CDP is a good CDP.

However, I have compared CD vs. SACD layers using Denon DVD-1920 universal player - and I have ALWAYS found the SACD layer significantly better than the CD layer.

I have done a rough comparision between SACD & DVD-A and here too I found SACD better.

SDhawan schrieb:

Hey Guys, sorry I started this controversy about SACD vs. CD but I did not intend to.

we won't hold you responsible as you are just the accidental victim!!
anyway, this topic is a bit more fun to discuss as one needs to dig in a little deeper into the mechanics of formats & why one format has legs to stand on & why another might not.

SDhawan schrieb:

All I meant was that Cyrus CDP played the CD layer even better than the Denon Universal player played the SACD layer. It just means that Cyrus CDP is a good CDP.

point noted, Doc!

SDhawan schrieb:

However, I have compared CD vs. SACD layers using Denon DVD-1920 universal player - and I have ALWAYS found the SACD layer significantly better than the CD layer.

I've had a hard time swallowing this when the SACD format wars were at their peak (2004-2005) & I still have a hard time now.
In atleast 1 of the links I've provided, there are several people who (like me) have been sceptical of SACD's superiority over CD. Many found that SACD was superior as an exception rather than the norm & that too mostly on Classical music wherein the hall ambiance & the instrument spacing was better delineated than CD. SACDs for Jazz, blues & rock hardly show any sonic superiority & often even show poorer reproduction. I've also read & experienced that a well-engineered redbook CD is a sonic delight to listen to. Patrica Barber CDs are one quick example. Several Audioquest & Blue Note CDs which were recorded direct to 2-track are another example. If you have heard Mapleshade Records CDs then you would agree that this would be a 3rd example. A 4th example would be Water Lily Acoustics with Tim de Paravincini doing the recording & maybe even the post processing - "Meeting by the River" is a delight to listen to.
From a technical standpoint, I find it hard to believe that SACD can sound better than CD because it takes a 44.1KHz data stream off a disk, increases its sampling rate 64X to 2.8224MHz <<The data format in SACD is changed to be a 1-b data stream (hence the name DSD or Direct Stream Digital >> & the tries to decode the music using a delta-sigma data converter running at the 64X data rate. We know that for any discrete-time system to settle adequately one usually needs 5-7 time constants - realistically 7 time constants for audio where distortions are a big no-no. So, let's be a sloppy here & allow the DSD data stream all of the 1/2.8224MHz time to settle. i.e. we've given it 354.31nS to settle. This is 7 time constants => I time constant = 50.615nS. This is equivalent to nearly 20MHz!! What this back-of-the-envelope calculation shows me is that the circuits operating on the DSD signal need to very wide bandwidth - 20MHz or higher - so that settle in time every time they are pinged by data within the DSD stream. Who makes electronics for audio with these ultra wide bandwidths that also has ultra low distortion? IMHO, they are very difficult to make & will definitely cost a heck of a lot to manuf as the volumes are very low. Technically, I do not think that SACD has any legs to stand on! It is a very cool system created by 1 intelligent audio engineer but it does not seem to be production worthy in its current form, IMHO.
Note also that a number of recent systems convert DSD to PCM format & perform a bunch of DSP on it before outputing the music signal. It is very hard to do any DSP on a 1-b digital DSD signal!
As an aside, I've read a comment from a reputed Audioasylum member, who I happen to respect as well, who said that his contact within the music industry admitted that they cannot make SACD sound like real music & that it sounds much like "fake treble" (his words quoted here).
If you read one of the white papers by Dan Lavry (who makes coveted electronics for the pro studios) you will read that sampling beyond 96KHz cannot be implemented with circuits that we already have for CDP manufacture.
I have also wondered why Sony, the creator of SACD, dropped SACD format altogether. I've read that it is because the public wants downloadable music & not SACD disks. Well, if SACD was the true successor to digital music, downloads could have been provided in SACD format. There would have been a cottage industry making SACD soundcards for PC & people would have been enjoying hi-rez music. That is not the case today however - on the contrary people are even happy with MP3! Apple forces people to use their lossless compression format but if Apple would not have done that, people would have been on their merry way w/ MP3!
People also say that CD just does not have the resolution that SACD does. BS! with 16 bits & upto 96dB SNR & with a dynamic range that is close to the same, I think that there is plenty of horsepower in CDs to reproduce high caliber music in the home environment. I would like to meet one audiophile who can maintain his audio 2-ch setup on a consistent basis to yield 96dB or better SNR & dynamic range! Most of the time our respective systems are performing FAR below the CD's SNR & dynamic range because of noise in the AC power, noise in our electronics, RF interference with cellular/TV stations, noise induced from loudspeaker feedback to the electronics via the rack & speaker coupling, etc, etc. There is no way that we are getting all that the CD has to offer us anyway & on top of this we need a SACD format to bail us out from the horrors of CDs? I am not convinced the argument is being made for the correct reasons!

SDhawan wrote: Hey Guys, sorry I started this controversy about SACD vs. CD but I did not intend to. we won't hold you responsible as you are just the accidental victim!!

So true, doc.

Actually, my post was about how a SACD (actually Hybrid ) player was compared to an undeclared ( I suspect MUCH more expensive ) CD player, and the SACD FORMAT was judged / condemed on the basis of this comparision....

When a mature format and processing such as a CD can sound so different in different players, comparing CD vs SACD in 2 totally different machines, from different manufactures, with different house sound ....

The discussion now seems to have migrated to a different ( better ) plane.

I agree, the Cyrus CD sound is very appealing and lively, and quite different from the Denon sound.... maybe a bit like comparing the Dyna Audio sound to that of say the Sonus Fabor sound.... both are different, and have their own fan following. You lucky guy can have Both

Enjoy.... and take your own call

Amp_Nut schrieb:

When a mature format and processing such as a CD can sound so different in different players, comparing CD vs SACD in 2 totally different machines, from different manufactures, with different house sound ....

Amp_Nut, I do not understand why you are making such a big deal about comparing CD & SACD on 2 different players??
The reason I say this is because we have mutually agreed on this:

In the same way, I think that squeezing SACD & CD into the same chassis must be forcing compromises. Ofcourse. Actually, even the Laser assembly is different for CD only and CD + SACD use, so the differences in performance .... and maybe even compromises begin right at the start of the chain.

i.e. to say that having SACD & CD playback in 1 chassis is by no means that there is any equality between them - the SACD & CD playback from the same vendor can be miles apart in their performance. For all practical purposes, one can consider having 2 entirely different playback schemes in 1 chassis, which is not very different from having 2 separate players.
You object to having 2 separate players because it is easy to see that these 2 playback schemes are rendered differently.
You do not object as much to 2 entirely different playback schemes inside 1 chassis because you see the name of 1 manufacturer on the chassis front panel but do not see just how vastly different the circuits are inside. So, I suppose, what cannot be seen cannot be objected to!

Anyway, the point I want to make is that having 2 different players playing back 2 entirely different formats that share nearly zero things in common, is not that different from having 2 entirely different playback schemes housed in 1 chassis. Like I said before, the comparison should be made between 2 like-priced units.
FWIW. IMHO.

Anyway, the point I want to make is that having 2 different players playing back 2 entirely different formats that share nearly zero things in common, is not that different from having 2 entirely different playback schemes housed in 1 chassis. Like I said before, the comparison should be made between 2 like-priced units.

Each manufacturer has a 'House Sound'

As an example, NAIM and McIntosh CD players may be similarly priced ( ? ) but offer COMPLETELY different sounds.

Then comparing SACD in one and a CD in the other ....
and then judging the SACD as a Format