$20,000 for a CD player?! Who would buy such a thing? (1 Viewer)

[Phil_DC]

$20,000.00 for a cd player!

I don't care if they dipped the cd player in 24K gold, I think that it would cost at the most a grand to produce one, all parts and labor included.

As for the $245,000.00 speakers...Are they towers made of pure platinum? Sheesh!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

To me, the very best vinyl discs--especially those produced during the "audiophile recordings" mini-boom of the late '70s and early '80s, sound better than most CDs to this day.

Jack, we have more in common than you realize. Despite the recent reply on the fantastic features of Super Audio, I love vinyl.
Let me tell a short story. A good friend is a well-known audiophile in Atlanta with a superb, carefully put together system of separates and very expensive items throughout. I had just received some older recordings remastered in DSD from analog sources (so not a fair pure DSD comparison in fairness to SACD) and was anxious to hear how much better they would sound on his mega-buck system. We got together for an audition of the SACDs at his house over a Sony SCD-1. When I arrived, we listened and to my dismay, he said "I think I have the original pressings" and pulled out the LPs! We then played this on his VPI TNT turntable. Wow! As awesome as the Super Audio sounded, there was a slight but significant edge to the LPs played on his tweaked out turntable.
Don't get me wrong, Super Audio is probably the best format for any source under $8-10K, but vinyl sounds very real and immediate. You get snap, crackle and pop but your ears learn to tune it out. The problem is the expense of cartridges, record cleaning gear, fussy geometry (cept for you Rega folks ), but if does not make you neurotic it is wonderful.
The other reason to go vinyl is the incredible records you have access to that are either missing entirely or suck on CD. Classic Records and APO are driving my turntable purchase. I am definitely in search of the best Led Zeppelin and I think Michael Hobson at Classic has it figured out.

 

[Warner]

Most people would agree that beyond a certain price point, the law of diminishing returns applies, and the extra money spent does not justify the relatively minor improvement in quality or performance, whether the difference can be heard or not. The problem is that people can't agree on where that magical price/quality point is. Everyone likes to believe that the money they spent, and the equipment they bought, is exactly at that price point where anything more expensive would not be worthwhile and you couldn't hear the difference anyway, and anything cheaper would not sound as good.

I personally believe that the perfect price/quality point is probably much lower than many people think. Our ears are the weakest link, and understandably, our emotions cloud our judgement.

 

[Danny Tse]

I am sorry if someone already said this but....a certain portion of $20,000 buys you bragging rights to owning that CD player. I don't doubt the Linn is an exceptionally crafted CD player but $20,000 ?? I will "settle" for Linn's new Klassic DVD player/receiver combo for 1/10 of $20,000.

I know, I know....to each his/her own.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Our ears are the weakest link, and understandably, our emotions cloud our judgement.

Actually, you are 180 degrees wrong. All that matters is our own ears. It's all about the music and what we hear of the music.
After all, it is better to hear good music than to hear something that measures well on some arbitrary scientific scale.

 

[Frank_S]

Everyone likes to believe that the money they spent, and the equipment they bought, is exactly at that price point where anything more expensive would not be worthwhile and you couldn't hear the difference anyway, and anything cheaper would not sound as good.

Warner, I don't feel that way.

 

[Warner]

Actually, I agree with you 100%. When I said that our ears are the weakest link, I meant from the standpoint that our ears can't pick up some of the differences that can be detected on "an arbitrary scientific scale", different ears will have different interpretations of the same sound, and our personal preference and even emotions come into play. Our ears/brain can't make a purely scientific evaluation of sound, yet they're all we have to listen with.

 

[Bill Lucas]

Jack,
I'm glad you've seen the light!
In the industry we call those that must purchase Levinson, Rowland, Sonus Faber Amatis, etc. "faceplate buyers". The equipment *must* be the best and *sound* the best because it has a very expensive price tag. And oh, by the way, look at that beautiful faceplate. Never mind that Levinson equipment STILL can't do digital well and overemphasizes the attack, Rowland is so freaking laid back that it puts you to sleep and the Amatis, well, if you can stand to stay in the room with those gutless wonders you're a better man than I. LOL!!
Personally I'll take a Meridian 596 over any other CD player for my "price is no object" player. Incredible performance in a player where the parts INSIDE the player cost more than the custom milled FACEPLATE.
For those "audiophiles" that will undoubtedly come crashing down on my I've sold Meridian, Classe, Bryston, Jeff Rowland, Mark Levinson, Sonus Faber, Dynaudio, Revel, Musical Fidelity, REL and Thiel among others and have listened to these products extensively.

 

[mike_decock]

Our ears are the weakest link, and understandably, our emotions cloud our judgement.

I believe that since our ears are ultimately what we are trying to please, the final, overriding test SHOULD be our ears. I think that our EMOTIONS should be the final judgement. Forget analyzing the sound. Throw away the audiophile-approved recordings. Put on your all-time favorite album and see if it gets your foot a-tappin', your mouth a-grinnin' and your booty a-shakin'. Isn't this what we were aiming for in the first place?


-Mike...

 

[Eric T]

I had the chance today to listen to a ~$80,000 2-channel system. Krell CD player and pre-amp, each running about $8k. A pair of 750-watt Krell monoblock amps, $27k. A pair of top-end B&W speakers, about $20k. And some VERY expensive cables - $1500 power cables, and $3000 (each) speaker cables.

I started laughing when I heard it because it sounded so incredible. And even though it was very loud, the drivers were hardly even moving. What an experience.

 

[Mattias_ka]

There's nothing wrong per se with a $20K CD player other than its obscene price. And its audible performance, in a double-blind listening test, will not be distinguishable from a garden-variety mass-produced player--no matter what the high-end audio pundits and religionists say.

Well, as ALWAYS audiophile are made to look as they don't HEAR only BUY what they read!
Ok, this is a hometheater forum so I will turn this around a little:

A used DLP projector for 200$ is as good as a new high-end
DLP for 20 000$!

A no-name DVD player for under 100$ is as good as Krell reference DVD player.

A tube tv-set is as good as a HDTV set.

LCD is as good as CRT.

...

So IF you agree with me, than high-end sound is only a joke and have nothing to do with what you hear!
If you DON'T agree with me (like you should), than you should re-think about high-end audio, it's like high-end hometheater, it IS better than the lower end. Ok, sometimes there are products that are better than a product that cost double.
And you can also think about that the human ear is much more advance than the human eye. And not ALL people can hear as good, and you learn to hear more when you use better and better stuff.
Not all people see chrome noise and other fault in the picture.

-Mattias-
And audiophile with a taste for movies

 

[Bill Lucas]

Mattias,

I agree that there is expensive gear that is very very good. There is also expensive gear that is underperforming and merely has a pretty faceplate. Said equipment is usually "voiced" to appeal to particular tastes and has nothing to do with accurate sound. What makes me laugh is the people on the forums that believe because a name is on a product and the price tag is high that it is something they desire. Regards.

 

[Saurav]

I believe that since our ears are ultimately what we are trying to please, the final, overriding test SHOULD be our ears. I think that our EMOTIONS should be the final judgement. Forget analyzing the sound. Throw away the audiophile-approved recordings. Put on your all-time favorite album and see if it gets your foot a-tappin', your mouth a-grinnin' and your booty a-shakin'. Isn't this what we were aiming for in the first place?

How long have you been in this hobby? It took me a couple of years to realize this, and you seem to know it from day one
You're already exploring vinyl, IIRC, and that's good. May I suggest looking into tube amps, SETs if possible, and high eficiency speakers, horns if possible. This has nothing to do with accuracy, but if you're looking for an emotional connection, that's a path I would recommend you explore.
I wasted so much time worrying about frequency response and soundstage/imaging...

 

[Eugene Hsieh]

Well, OK, I'll be honest, I have never listened to the $20000 CD player in this thread, and I betcha most in this thread haven't either.

I have done the $300 vs. $7000 A/B amp comparison (non-blinded) several times with much higher speakers than mine. Yes the system did sound much better than what I have now, BUT both the $300 receivers and $7000 amps (not including the preamp, etc.) sounded identical. ie. BOTH sounded very good.

Bear with me while I bring another flame fest topic into the fray. With well-encoded MP3 vs CD sometimes I even have problems distinguishing the two. However, it has become clear that I CAN distinguish MP3 from CD consistently when presented with a single-blinded test. (We've done these tests just out of interest's sake) However, I believe the differences here are WAY bigger than whatever existed with the $300 vs $7000 amps.

Now mind you I'm not playing these things at stadium levels, or in 4000 square foot rooms. I've just listened to these at low levels in 10x14' rooms, which is what I would need.

Maybe my ears suck? Perhaps, but interestingly, I have had my hearing tested - not because my hearing was a problem, but because my friend was learning how to use the equipment. My left ear is better than my right ear, but both are well within the normal range for human hearing. And I'd hazard to guess at the time they were tested (in my 20s), my hearing was significantly better than many greying "golden ears". It is well known that high frequency hearing and indeed hearing in general diminishes with age.

People talk about chasing that extra 20%. I submit that what people are chasing is much less than that 20%. At normal listening levels and fairly good speakers, I suspect that one is chasing less than 1%, and in many situations that %'age is less than the threshold of most adult human hearing.

Now I'm not saying it's not worth spending more in many situations. Much of the time the equipment is WAY better built, or overbuilt as the case may be. Style is sometimes better too. And sometimes it isn't. If the McIntosh's I've seen (above 5) are representative, I'd never buy one on looks alone.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I'm not saying this stuff isn't good. What I am saying is that audible differences in the sonic performance of ultra-expensive equipment might be more illusory than they are tangeble.

Case in point: When I was at the late Los Angeles Reader, I took Absolute Sound editor Harry Peasron to task for claiming in his review of the then-new Audio Research SP-10 vacuum-tube preamplifier that the unit was so musical and accurate it enabled the listener to tell what kind of material was used in the construction of a concert hall in which a recording was made.

In response, I said, "Give me a break." (My disillusionment with the high end was coming out big time.)

Pearson soon sent me an angry postcard in which he wondered just how much I knew about audio.

I wondered if Pearson might be better off writing about UFOs or modern art--his credulity levels astonished me at times, no matter how good a writer he is. (I much prefer his work in The Perfect Vision, when he writes about film. Pearson's grounding in science and electronics borders on the laughable.)

Now, some so-called high-end equipment is overpriced and of dubious quality. When Audio Research first released the vacuum-tube M300 monoblock amplifier, nearly all units shipped out went into catastrophic failure mode--a nearly 100-percent failure rate in the field.

That's unacceptable. William Zane Johnson was using the consumer as a field-testing minion for a $10,000 single-channel amplifier.

How's that good for business? But the cultists keep coming back.

I love an all-out two-channel music system. However, I believe home theater has brought a much-needed sense of rationalism to the world of music reproduction in the home.

 

[Eric T]

Jack, you have a good point. I wouldn't spend $10,000 on a single-channel amp no matter how good it was or how much money I had. But to be fair, I'm sure that no one who reads Absolute Sound wants to read something that questions the large investments they have made. It doesn't leave one with a good feeling, and is probably not a good marketing move for the publication.

After listening to that super-accurate and uber-expensive Krell system, I got to thinking. I spent some time performing, recording, and engineering in some small recording studios. With all the coloration that's added from the microphones, mixing board, processing equipment, and recording gear, I don't see the point in spending huge dollars to get a highly accurate sound! You just end up reproducing with incredible clarity all of the inaccuracies that are present in the source material. So my goal is to get a system that has a sweet sound and leave it at that.

 

[Keir H]

Danny I agree with you on the Klassic DVD/CD player. I was amazed on how they drove the Linn 5140's in stereo. Lot's of detail that drove me right into the room when I only meant to just pass by and peek in..amzaing at what 75 (true watts/ch?) can do on that system. I would be set and content with that setup..if it only had component and progressive scan...or does it?



Can anyone tell me what makes the CD-12 so expensive? Is it the parts used internally, upgradability, sound quality alone or just a status symbol for highend buyers? Sorry if this has been asked before.

 

[KeithH]

Keir asked:

Can anyone tell me what makes the CD-12 so expensive? Is it the parts used internally, upgradability, sound quality alone or just a status symbol for highend buyers?

Although I have not heard the CD12, I suspect that performance and prestige are both at play in determining the asking price of $20,000. As I said in other posts here, the CD12 is often regarded as the best CD player ever designed. However, I feel that the prestige factor contributes to the high price. The CD12 is produced in low numbers and is obviously not made for the average buyer. It is made for those who value the notion of having the best and can pay the price.

For the record, I am not saying that the CD12 is the best player around, but the high asking price connotes a superior quality. In the case of the CD12, $20,000 may or may not get you the best CD player. That will always be a subject of (intense) debate. However, for the high-end buyer with deep pockets, a $20,000 price tag communicates "bestness", and does so quite boldly. As Andre Agassi used to say, "Image is everything."

Once again, I feel compelled to make it clear that Linn is not alone in the high-priced digital arena. Other companies make digital gear priced in the ballpark of the CD12. Just look at Burmester and Accuphase. Wadia also makes some high-priced equipment.

 

[AndyHangartner]

Keith,
Having read the whole thread, I agreed with most of your posts but I hope you don't believe that the Linn is one of the best because of the price. Expensive items can still be crap. Let me say I have heard the Linn with their own amps and speakers. Total setup $125k (at Sounds Good To Me) Scottsdale Az. I was not impressed at all. Yes it had the things that people describe as important, smoothness, clarity, etc.., but it had no grab you by the gonads, entice you to listen further appeal. Also it sucked on more heavy sounds. Would if you like Diana Krall and Ozzie? Believe me the Ozzie sounded like crap.(I know some say that was an accurate reproduction, but it didn't have any 'slam'. I then listened to a Music Hall cd player on a Adcom pre and Parasound amp through Vandersteen speakers that was enticing.Depth,imaging,sound staging,awesome. Then was a Theta Casablanca II with the Theta player and Dreadnaught amp through Wilson Watt Puppies. One Hundred Thousand Dollars and the player kept skipping. The sound was decent, the speakers are ugly, and the cdp sucked. For all the money,the Music Hall Vandersteen setup impressed me the most. We also watched a movie (tried to) on Proceed gear but their DVD player is crap. Even the salesman said they are great when they work. They just hardly ever work. Now I ask why that someone would pay the price of the Proceed with its inherent problems (they do sell them even so) and would accept the problems associated with it, but would not put up with it from a $79 dvd player? Is it just to have the Proceed name?
A fool and their money..........
andy

 

[KeithH]

Andy, I never said the Linn CD12 was the best player in my opinion because of price, performance, look, temperament, moral disposition, political alignment, etc. I merely said that the CD12 is often regarded as the best player. This has been said by writers in audio magazines and by some folks on Audio Asylum. I said at least once in this thread that I have never heard the CD12. As a result, I have no basis for assessing its absolute performance or its price/performance ratio.