|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.77.108.16
Hello all,I have a Rega Planet original and have read a few reviews of the unit. Many say it is very "analogue-like" ("ue" used to emphasiSe the player's Britishness) in its presentation. I am not sure what this means.
Frankly, when comparing CD players, I am somewhat at a loss. What material is best to expose strengths/weaknesses of a player? Thanks,
Follow Ups:
Back when it was launched I wrote the world's second printed-mag review of the Planet (we got beaten by the UK's What HiFi with one week).I assessed the Planet in a group review, against 3 other like-priced machines, and using careful level matching. Compared to all of these the Planet simply sounded warmer and darker. Perhaps of lesser resolution (especially in the treble), but ultimately musically (much) more rewarding. The others sounded thin and grey or overly-colourful and busy (e.g. Marantz CD-63/67)
Later circuit analysis revealed that the Planet used a cheap Burr-Brown delta-sigma DAC chip, used in a slightly unconventional configuration (if I remember correctly, on-chip opamp DC levels were decoupled to Vcc instead of Ground). It interfaces with a single Sanyo chip that contains a number of opamps and voltage regulators (for these opamps, and for the DAC chip itself). This chip was probably originally designed to allow greater circuit densities in portable players. No specific care towards supply voltage quality, lots of crummy electrolytic caps and ceramic caps in the signal path.
In short: according to standard high-end audio design lore the Planet's design was a pile of crap.
But it sounded good.
I later on bought a Planet, and after many years modified the output stage somewhat, bringing more clarity without losing the musicality.
A mfr's dream.
I am not surprised by the "pile of crap" circuitry. As a musician, one thing that is always to be remembered is the imperfection of every note played. Guitar amps, for example, are designed to sound a certain way. Originally, Fender Champ amplifiers contains instructions stating that if distortion occurs, turn the volume down. Now obviously some of the most musical tones from a guitar happen when the instrument is right at the threshhold of distortion.I have also been noticing a certain sound from vinyl, and one of things that seems to make a big difference in the sound is that it is not perfect, there is a tiny amount distortion or sibilance (at least in my setup!) that just sort of sounds right.
Interestingly, since I am only 21 I grew up listening to CD's (my first Nirvana Nevermind) and I had never heard a record play until 9th grade. Furthermore, it is only recently that I have been listening extensively to vinyl, but I can definitely tell the difference between vinyl and CD. There is just a certain "presense," or space, that some CD's definitely don't have.
So far I really like the Rega. It replaces a Marantz CC4300 that I lived with for a week before it broke down. While it sounded fine, I really like the sound of the Rega better. Even it is only psychological, I don't know.
Thanks for the replies!
Maybe the DAC chip they use?
Clock??
To me, most cd players fall into two flavors: Some are about pristine clarity, fine sharp details,speed,very extended top/bottom frequencies,and great PRAT with a more "upfront" then "layed back" in their presentation. While others do the "musical/organic" sense, natural timbres,and an easy flowing liquidity thing and are often described as more analogish. I remember the rega as very smooth, warm, laid back sounding, or more befitting of the analogish description.What material is best to expose strengths/weaknesses of a player?
Always demo with recordings that you are most familiar with, but use a bunch of different types. I use complex music like big orchestral works.
Interesting, so is there one type of music that would easily expose the "digital nasties" as I have heard them referred to? I know with vinyl people say to listen to female vocals to expose tracking issues and etc.I guess I am really asking what exactly I should be listening for.
While I do hear two distinct types of sounds, the differences are more subtle within each category. I find more $ buys 1) better treble, 2) bigger soundstage, and 3) more clarity and resolution.Treble - Cd’s have a digital edgyness to them that is most noticable in the treble, newer pop recordings being the most troublesome b/c they’re so compressed, bright, and edgy. Do some reading on siblance and listen to how the letter “s” sounds with vocals or the initial crash of a cymbal. There’s a zing or bite to it, to some it’s exagerated and may prefer a softer or rolled off top end, but think some of it is inherited as part of what makes a cd sound like a cd and prefer articulation.
Soundstage – Use any good recording and listen for the difference in physical size of the soundstage. Are the boundaries confined or somehow extend past the room.
Clarity and resolution – Use complex music and focus on the inner details. Is everything mushed together or is each note well separated and distinct.
Here are some of my test recordings…
- Dance Macabre for micro dynamics, transient attack, air, decay, pace, and grain.
- Johnny Frigo - Live from Studio A New York City is a single mike recording (less artificial processing sounds more lifelike).
- Eva Cassidy - Live at Blues Alley for acoustical space (air vs a black hole) ambience, and decay
- Gladiator’ battle scene or O’fortuna for a brute force test.
- stuff of varying tempos like (Basie, Krall, and Norah) for PRAT. If the “Pace Rhythm And Timing” is right, Basie bops, Krall sounds S’wonderful and Norah sounds meloncholy (which is normal). If too fast, Basie seems hurried, Krall sounds less syrupy and Norah sounds happy or too slow, Basie sounds boring, Krall too syrupy and Norah sounds morbid.If your source is more than a few years old, and haven’t been out shopping in awhile, you don’t have to spend a lot to get a lot these days, but should max out your source in line with the rest of the system.
Believe what your ears say - not hearsay.
This brings up a topic I have always wondered about. What the hell is PRAT? I mean, I know what it stands for, but isn't it up to the band to get the pacing, rhythm and timing right? I mean, if there was a player that would slop up drum parts and slow down the bass licks so that all my music sounded like mariachi, I think it would be pretty incredible! But what is a CD player working with but two tracks of audio, one for each channel, correct?Please, help me understand this idea!
Thanks,
I’m not good with technical rationale, at best can only describe what I hear. I’m not sure that PRAT resides exclusively within any one component, but the cdp (like everything) has some effect. I’m all over the place in terms of music genre, so it’s important to me that things can swing as well as seduce.Using the same variety of cd’s can detect variation in the delivery of attack & decay. When there’s too much attack and not enough decay, it sounds too fast; reminds me of a child playing a piano solo, , for the first time in the school recidal…each note is played as quickly as possible (to get it over with) without allowing the previous note to decay. - Basie seems hurried, Krall sounds less syrupy and Norah sounds happy. Conversely, with too much decay and not enough attack, it sounds too slow; reminds me of same kid learning to play a song, read the notes, and find the keys at the same time or an accomplished musician who’s bored from playing the same night afer night.– Basie sounds boring, Krall too syrupy and Norah sounds morbid. Just right lets - Basie bops, Krall sounds S’wonderful and Norah sounds meloncholy (which is normal).
The existence or not of PRAT is a periodic matter of discussion here. People who use the term say that some systems simply get their toes tapping more than others -- some are just better at conveying the feel of rhythm. I dunno. Your comments are right, but it's not unimaginable that there are other qualities of audio gear that make the experience of rhythm somehow stronger.Re Rega, it's got a lush, distinctive sound that's very nice. My own experience, FWIW, was that the Rega tended to be slightly less detailed and perhaps because of that it would bring the featured instrument or vocalist a little more forward and push the backing vocals/instruments more to the back. My own favorite for hearing what a source component does is a capella gospel music, both because differences in timbre stand out and because of the interplay between soloist and chorus. If you have a dealer who will let you line up several CD players and compare, the differences should stand out. Chamber music with strings is great; if you're a musician pick a great recording with your instrument.
I am happy to read comments about lushness and etcetera, those are qualities I definitely look for in both the music I listen to as well as the sound I am hearing. I would say that so far it has been a good experience with the player except for the fact that it really has issues playing CD's that aren't totally pristine. That is annoying, especially when the CD is just basically brand new but for one teeeeny scratch.As far as auditioning, heh, maybe someday, for now I am on dad's flow of gear being nudged out, so the Planet is a pleasant by-product of my dad's upgrade to the Jupiter. No complaints there, I know it is a player I couldn't afford on my, hmmmm, say...college student fixed income :)
You did well in your choice of Dads and you can't go wrong with Rega. The other thing to look at as far as sources is the PC, which has a nice forum here and is definitely the wave of the future. No more worries about CD scratches.You can sometimes use Exact Audio Copy to make a playable version of a scratched CD.
> I guess I am really asking what exactly I should be listening for.My 2 cents: you should be listening to music you like, stuff you listen to all the time. If it sounds good on the Rega, then the Rega is probably the player for you. I've heard lots of equipment that sounds great with certain types of music, but falls short of acceptability for everyday use.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: