Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request From: cbmvax!cgh!paul@uunet.UU.NET (Paul Homchick) Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Subject: Re: Proceed opinions wanted Message-ID: <6968@uwm.edu> Date: 15 Oct 90 13:09:13 GMT Sender: news@uwm.edu Lines: 78 Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu Further notes on listening to CD players: I spent a few hours yesterday listening to a modified Phillips CD-80 used as a CD 'deck' hooked up to a Madrigal Proceed DAC and a modified Phillips DAC-960. I also listened to my old Nakamichi OMS-4A, and later substituted a stock Phillips CD-960 as the CD 'deck' feeding the two DACs. Associated equipment was a highly-modified Adcom GFP-565 driving two Adcom GFA-565s and a pair of modified Magneplanar IIs. I reported previously that I had a hard time hearing the difference between the Proceed and the stock CD-960 on my system. Yesterday's listening proved that differences between CD players are easily heard providing the associated system is good enough. (The system described above is evidently better than mine!) As might be expected, the Nakamichi fared the worst. It sounded the harshest, and had the least detail. Recordings tended to sound 'drier' and more 'electronic' on this player, presumably because of less low-level information. However, my fellow auditors (Walt Jung and Hampton Childress) expressed surprise at how good the Nak sounded. They regarded it as superior to stock Phillips players. We next compared the modified DAC-960 to the Proceed. All agreed that the DAC-960 sounded best. It was less harsh on the very top of the violins and trumpets, had more detail with things seeming (to me) more clearly 'etched.' (Others might talk about 'air', a term which I dislike). The Proceed was 'warmer' sounding than the modified DAC-960, or less-detailed, depending on how you wanted to describe it. We listened to a variety of classical sources including some Poulenc chamber music on DGG 427 639-2, Shostakovich Symphony No. 8, Haitink, London 411 616-2, Brahms Sonata No. 1 Op. 78 on Wilson Audiophile WCD-8722, the Chesky JD2 Clark Terry CD, and the Mozart Clarinet Concerto with Hogwood on L'Oiseau-Lyre 414 339-2. When the stock CD-960 was substituted as a deck for the modified CD-80, Walt Jung said it was more electronic and constricted, but I wasn't as sure I could hear anything. (This was after several hours of listening, and I was tired). Finally, Jung and Childress said that they preferred the sound of the Proceed to that of a Theta Pro they had heard two months ago. They said the Theta's imaging wasn't as good, and that instrument positions tended to wander during climaxes when listening to the Theta. (I have never heard a Theta). Walt Jung will probably be familiar to many of the readers of this group, being a long-time audio author, and having done some pioneering work on Transient Intermodulation Distortion back in the '70s. Recently, he had been modifying CD players and writing about it in the Audio Amateur. Hampton Childress has been working with Jung on the CD modifications when he isn't playing in the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, which is what he does for a living. Anyone who might be interested in purchasing modified Phillips players from Jung-Childress or having a player modified (or in researching the possibilities) might write to: Jung-Childress Audio and Electronics P.O. Box 36141 Towson, Maryland 21286 (To clarify things re: the internet non-commercial code: I have no connection with this endeavor. I'm just a curious listener.) In summary, I am convinced that there are clearly audible differences between CD players. But, ONLY on the highest grade associated equipment. I would caution anyone contemplating such an expense to audition the player or converter in their own system. You may, or may not, be able to tell the difference! -- Paul Homchick :UUCP {rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc. :Internet cgh!paul@dsi.com 259 Radnor-Chester Rd, Suite 140 :MCI PHOMCHICK Radnor, PA 19087-5299 :GEnie HOMCHICK