Audiophile bulls**t & final thoughts about nine reviews

Hallo meine süßen Lieblinge!

During the last few weeks I´ve reviewed the following units: Kenwood DP-5090, Pioneer DV-610, Sony CDP-470, Pioneer BDP-140, iRiver IMP-550, Sony MZ-R 55, Sony MZ-R 37, Sony NW-A 1000 and the Sansa Clip+. You might have wondered where I was getting at with all these reviews; I usually have an overarching theme or reason for my articles, haven´t I? Well, I planned to feature all reviews in just one article, in the end stating my conclusions - of course, that would have enlarged that article into gross proportions. So I seperated the already written article into ten singular parts, the one you´re about to read contains my conclusion and opinion.

For as long as I can think I wanted to read a review where units from different classes are compared to each other. Why not comparing a portable player playing lossy music to an SACD player spinning high resolution media? I mean their goal is the same: playback with a-good-as-possible quality. But have you ever read a review where something like that happens? I have not and I assume peoples' misconceptions about compression, size, weight, number of parts and price have something to do with it. Ask yourself: why should a tiny, portable player be worse than a much bigger stationary player? Can less available space really be a reason for worse sound? I also wanted to know how well ancient players would hold up to more modern devices, a universal disc player for example. You only have to take a look at eBay where more than 20 year old CD players are able to reach high prices; something that also applies for units that were not even top-of-the-line back then. Yet recent universal players are derided as being far away from high fidelity sound by magazines and the public alike. People seem to believe that everything was better in the old days... a curious thing really when you think about it: assuming modern units contain more advanced parts why should they be worse? Common conceptions therefore are:

• old units have better built quality
• they contain much more parts - good for sound, isn´t it?
• ancient units are heavier - must sound better
• small units with their space restrictions must sound worse
• older technology sounds less 'digital'
• huge, conservative power supplies are vital for perfect sound
• lossy media cannot ever be competitive against high resolution material

I could extend this list to infinity but it wouldn´t make much sense in light of the contents of this article. I could for example mention the recent craze about NOS (Non OverSampling) D/A converters... there are so many things wrong with this approach that it´s very confusing that people even consider it as an option while ignoring 30 years of technical progress. Or tubes... no, I won´t start. I´d rather talk about audio magazines  seemingly confirming those conceptions about quality as stated above. You see, magazines only compare units from their respective classes, they also support the view that smaller gadgets must sound worse simply because of their size. But the biggest thing they are claiming is that High End audio sounds much better than 'normal', standard audio. For some years now I have the opinion that High End audio isn´t really better, only different. Expensive media players for example are more or less tweaked to sound a certain way, a sound pleasing to the common audiophile. Companies subsequently tweak their units towards sonic goals such as warmth, precision, punch, snap etc. Will those expensive toys sound like the original? Of course not. They will sound well with Rock or classical music and not so well with anything else - but that doesn´t matter since few audiophiles actually branch out of the musical genres they usually listen to. I have to admit though that heavy units look and feel better, you extend a considerable trust towards them by assuming that weight and complexity are good traits for players.

Let´s ignore my own and your prejudices and take a look at the actual thing. In this article you won´t have any of the prejudices or certain preferences with me because as I´ve stated many times before I don´t compare any unit to another one, I compare directly to the master used for the creation of the testing media itself. No one else does this and I believe my approach to be genuine and also to be the only methodology coming close the precision of DBTs without their disadvantages. Regarding my reviews I didn´t know what to expect or what I´d be ending up with. I thought it possible that all the conceptions above might be true while also accepting the opposite. Naturally, this article reflects my findings, with different hardware it could have turned out different. So you have to be aware that I don´t regard my conclusions as written in stone, they could change depending on experiences with other units. I also accept that you, dear reader, won´t agree on a comparison of high resolution to lossy material. But think about it: the advantages of high defintion might be swallowed by the imperfections from the device playing it back so that in the end lossy material coming from a superior unit might be the better representative.

Four stationary players: Pioneer DV-610, Sony CDP-470, Pioneer BDP-140, Kenwood DP-5090

For better comparison of all the reviewed units I have calculated the average of the points they earned, these are subsequently used for a ranking (this is a first for my blog). Be advised that those averaged numbers obscure the differences between the units, a unit like the MZ-R 37 for example might not have a sonic character suitable for you despite receiving a high number of points. For the described details and difference please have a look at the respective articles linked on the top of the page. The results were surprising on some occasions, on others however they were not:

1st place

Pioneer DV-610, SACD:

4.6 Points

2nd place

Pioneer BDP-140, CD/SACD:

4.4 Points

3rd place

Pioneer DV-610, CD:

4.0 Points

4th place

Sony NW-A 1000

3.8 Points

4th place

Sansa Clip+

3.8 Points

5th place

Sony MZ-R 55

3.6 Points

5rd place

Sony MZ-R 37

3.6 Points

6th place

Kenwood DP-5090

3.0 Points

7th place

iRiver IMP-550

2.6 Points

8th place

Sony CDP-470

1.2 Points

If you´re a believer in high end units you are probably crushed now, right? A multidisc player playing SACDs is the winner (it really sounds close to the reference) while another multidisc player follows closely. Both multidisc units are lightweight, not manufactured that well, have very few parts and cheap plastic drives. Their power supply doesn´t seem to have received much care at the design stage, they 'only' have those dreaded and efficient switching power supplies supposedly known for causing bad sound quality on PCs. Likewise, small portable players are not necessarily worse in sound quality - as proven by the two 4th places, the Sony NW-A 1000 and the Sansa Clip+. The NW-A 1000 is especially interesting since it has to use lossy material - who would´ve thought that mp3 would sound that well? Most disappointing were the results for the iRiver IMP-550, the Sony CDP-470 and the Kenwood DP-5090. The latter was surprising because it contains many parts (some of high quality), has a decent power supply, a well built CD drive and a good overall built quality. It also received favourable reviews from magazines when released in 1997. But its sonic signature favors 'shrill' and 'piercing' way too much, it´s not neutral and introduces very audible differences though all of these could be pleasing for a certain target audience. The Sony CDP-470 was supposed to have a good old school sound... it does indeed sound old school - but in a bad way. It´s a very digital and harsh sounding player, the numerous parts on the PCB and the reliable drive are not helping. The Sansa Clip+ is beloved everywhere but doesn´t hold up to its reputation, due to age related imperfections it shows enormous amounts of audible distortions. The best gadget for the price would be the Sansa Clip+; while it´s not perfectly balanced its dynamic and slightly more aggressive sound signature will appeal to many people.

What does these results tell us then? Not as much as I´d hoped but nonetheless they pose some interesting questions: when a cheap multidisc player sounds close to the reference how can a high end unit have superior sound? Answer: it can´t. It probably changes sound into something different with a more charming character, appealing more to the intended audience it was designed for. When a player using as few parts as possible can sound so well and refined why are many, high quality parts even necessary? Answer: they aren´t. Both Pioneer players achieve their goal of good audio quality with a layout that only seems to lack sophistication, yet in reality it works well. If lossy material (mp3 or MD) holds up so well against lossless or SACD, are those even necessary? Answer: Yes and No. High resolution is indeed able to extract the last little detail and crispness - the real question is if it´s audible for everyone which I´d answer with a 'No'. It certainly isn´t audible on every unit as proven by the BDP-140. Generally, sonic disadvantages of lossy audio are exaggerated as well as advantages of lossless or high resolution audio. Are portable personal players worse than their stationary counterparts? Answer: not necessarily. The NW-A 1000 or the Clip+ perform well while the two stationary players (DP-5090 and CDP-470) really fucked up. Are ancient players any better than more recent counterparts? Answer: No. The last place is occupied by the oldest player, also sounding 'old'. If you want to listen to an example of the supposedly digital and distorted sound of the CD go for that model. Can units playing back lossy material be superior to units playing back lossless quality? Answer: Yes. Three players, using mp3, AAC or MiniDisc are superior or equal to four others using lossless material. The codec therefore doesn´t decide about sound quality, the device itself does (provided that one uses well encoded material).

All of this should prompt you to think carefully about purchasing an ancient unit, it should also create skepticism regarding fantastic reviews of high end gadgets and their supposedly gorgeous sound quality. Many parts or heavy units don´t automatically guarantee perfect sound. You should also regard the recent craze about high resolution with serious doubts; it can have an advantage and better sound quality but the differences are so small that many people won´t ever hear them. The Pioneer BDP-140 comes extremely close to the sound of the Pioneer DV-610 (using SACD) with CDs only. So please, think twice before you buy something or trust someone, go out there yourself and don´t stop comparing and being skeptical.

Last update: 17.06.15

Review: Pioneer BDP-140

You´re about to read the penultimate out of nine reviews. You don´t need to read them all, just pick the unit that seems to be the most interesting to you. In the weeks to follow I´ll review the following units: Kenwood DP-5090, Pioneer DV-610, Sony CDP-470, Pioneer BDP-140, iRiver IMP-550, Sony MZ-R 55, Sony MZ-R 37, Sony NW-A 1000 and the Sansa Clip+. Stay tuned and enjoy the new review: the Pioneer BDP-140! I also implore you to read the article describing my rigorous testing methodology before you actually start reading this one.

Pioneer BDP-140 (picture copyright by Pioneer)

The Pioneer BDP-140 is my first BluRay player and the most recent of the bunch. My boyfriend bought it for me last month as a present for my birthday. Until a year ago I didn´t spend one minute on BluRay simply because the picture quality of the DV-610 was so wonderful with upscaled DVDs. At the same time I however noticed that special DVD editions were becoming less common; special or Collector's editions started to be produced for BluRays instead. Point is, I really like to put those nifty looking special editions onto our cupboards (or into drawers, the cellar... where there is available space). I´m a collector and DVD started to become extinct in regard to special editions so I concluded that I would finally need a BluRay player. In September 2012 the BDP-140 was going to be replaced by the BDP-150 (its very similar successor) and as a result it became very cheap: my boyfriend bought it for roughly 100,- Euros (compare that to the 170,- Euros for the DV-610).

Pioneer BDP-140 from inside

Its manufacturing quality is reflected by its price range: compared to the DV-610 it has been reduced somewhat. While the BDP-140 is bigger than the DV-610 it weighs roughly half, probably because everything inside is smaller, less complex with a much higher level of integration. The power supply board for the DV-610 for example is three times bigger, its PCB is twice as big and also contains more parts. When BluRay players first hit the market their cases were filled to the brink with parts, they even needed fans to cool their power hungry hardware. The BDP-140 has only one D/A-converter (a fairly recent Asahi Kasei 4430) which also seems to include the complete output stage... yes, it´s true, I can only see six additional parts for the output in the Service Manual. BUT: I might be talking bullshit here so I´d be thankful if someone could enlighten or correct me. Anyway, the DV-610 was still aimed at analogue playback, it could pass six  analogue channels for Dolby Digital, DTS, SACD and DVD-Audio through its RCA outputs while the HDMI-output felt like a fancy gimmick in comparison. The BDP-140 on the other hand has only digital interconnections in mind, achieved through its modern HDMI 1.4a output. Few people know that it´ll also allow digital output of SACD signals through its optical S/PDIF output with 24/88.2 (2.0). it´s one of only two players on the market able to do that. EDIT: The last two generations of Pioneer BluRay players apparantly have been able to do that, I became aware of it thanks to members from the AVSforum. Since everything can be done digitally the analogue output seems to serve as some kind of spare. Apart from being extremely lightweight it also doesn´t look good from the outside or the inside. The front and the mechanical parts (drive) feel like rather cheap and not well-manufactured plastic and the whole layout appears to lack sophistication and care. The impression I have is that this player is a mass-produced, off-the-shelf creation constructed without love - or so it seems.

Pioneer BDP-140: cheap looking front

BTW, Pioneer didn´t manufacture it, it was built for them by Chinese manufacturer TCL. That might be one of the reasons why several people at for example Amazon.com reported that the drive emits loud noises, that the menu of the player has faults or that the software embedded in the player crashes often - they don´t trust the Chinese even though they have been manufacturing high quality devices for years. I however have not witnessed something like this in the one month I´ve used it: for me it has been working without flaw, played every disc and every file I´ve fed it with so far. The drive is fast and doesn´t emit loud noises, the player also doesn´t get very warm. In short: since I got it it has been working very reliably.

Pioneer BDP-140 CD playback

Pioneer BDP-140 SACD playback

Pioneer BDP-140 jitter CD playback

As you can see on the RMAA charts the BDP-140 measures almost as well as the DV-610; jitter performance has been improved and I´m sure that it´s 100% inaudible. With CDs the sound through its analogue output is equally impressive: as detailed and defined as the reference it only shows a lack of power at the presence range to some extent. I assume that this somewhat laid back sound is also the reason for a recessed stage - but when I say "somewhat" I really mean that it´s hardly noticeable at all. The stage for example is as wide and deep as the reference files yet a tiny bit distant because of aforementioned reasons. The slightly diminished mids are also responsible micro dynamics losing a small part of their appeal. These are the only flaws I could find because it doesn´t have any problems with timing, snap, transients or speed. Resolution and details are top-notch, it also retains the reference files' character. I wish I could tell you that SACD sounds better, I can´t though because it sounds exactly like CD. Just like the DV-610 the BDP-140 resamples DSD to 24/88.2 - but apparently not as well. Taking other reviews I´ve read to their logical conclusion I´d like to point that even the digital output won´t reveal as much of the music as the analogue output of the DV-610. But I´m complaining on a high level... because consider this: the engineering focus wasn´t on analogue output and it still sounds that well? Above I wrote that it seems to be constructed without 'love'... as it turns out you won´t need emotions to create well sounding devices, apparently you´d 'only' need engineering skills! Congratulations, Pioneer:

CD/SACD playback

Sonic Balance:

Dynamics:

Resolution:

Stage / Ambiance:

Character:

Update 17.04.2013: Over half a year has passed since purchasing this BluRay Player. I would love to write that something dramatic has happened (no, I wouldn´t) but this player still performas as expected. Not one Disc it had to play during those seven months has malfunctioned, it didn´t matter if it was a BluRay, DVD, CD or SACD. There has been one complete crash of its system software which was caused by an error I made myself (I was trying out video encoding and created a faulty encoding). Furthermore, during those seven months I´ve come to love its remote. It feels wonderful in my hand (because of mixture of plastic/aluminum), has every button I wish for it to have and seems to have an incredibly powerful infrared light as I can point it anywhere with the player receiving every command. The result is that I can still recommend it, if you should find it anywhere go buy it.

Review: Pioneer DV-610

You´re about to read the seventh out of nine reviews. You don´t need to read them all, just pick the unit that seems to be the most interesting to you. In the weeks to follow I´ll review the following units: Kenwood DP-5090, Pioneer DV-610, Sony CDP-470, Pioneer BDP-140, iRiver IMP-550, Sony MZ-R 55, Sony MZ-R 37, Sony NW-A 1000 and the Sansa Clip+. Stay tuned and enjoy the new review: the Pioneer DV-610! I also implore you to read the article describing my rigorous testing methodology before you actually start reading this one.

Pioneer DV-610

The Pioneer DV-610 is the first SACD player I bought. I already had collected numerous SACDs beforehand for years without being able to play them back. I knew that I would own a SACD player the moment they became affordable - which finally happened in 2009 when I bought this one for 170,- Euros. But I wanted more and this player appeared to be the device best suited to my needs: I wished to replace my ageing JVC DVD player with a technologically more advanced machine, a player that would read every medium I´d throw at it with ease (including my SACDs). I also wanted to have an HDMI output for possible future use with a modern display. Last year in July we finally bought our first flat screen and for the first time I witnessed a digitally transmitted picture having a quality I didn´t expect coming from DVD. Responsible for upscaling to 1080p is a chip manufactured by Mediatek, this chip (MT1389) also does DSD decoding, mp3 decoding, MPEG 2 / MPEG 4 decoding and whatnot. D/A conversion is achieved by three Burr Brown PCM 1742KE (released in 2005 and still in production), an up-to-date delta-sigma converter incorporating functions into only one IC for which the Kenwood DP-5090 and the Sony CDP-470 needed up to five seperate ICs. It´s also quite expensive when I consider that the Pioneer DV-610 was only a budget model. For SACD its potential is partially unused since the Mediatek chip resamples DSD from 1/2.8224 down to 24/88.2. The huge amount of parts for D/A converter and output stage present in the CDP-470 and the DP-5090 is absent, the Pioneer achieves the goal of converting and amplifying with a much simpler layout.

Responsible for good picture quality at 1080p

Manufacturing quality is ok but nothing to get mad about. The DV-610 is lightweight, its front is made out of plastic and the drive mechanism (by Orion) doesn´t feel too robust (though it still works very well, reliably and fast). It´s certainly not manufactured as well as the Kenwood DP-5090 which probably is the reason that this player and its predecessors didn´t fare too well in reviews when used as a CD/SACD player. Several audio magazines here in Germany compared it against much more expensive players (heavier, more parts, etc.) and - surprise! - they fared much better. As we all know, weight, manufacturing quality and a high price tag are all important for audio, aren´t they? To find out if that´s the truth let´s have a look at my measurments which have been done seperately for CD and SACD:

Pioneer DV-610, CD

Pioneer DV-610, SACD

Pioneer DV-610, jitter, CD

Apart from the amount of jitter the measurments are excellent throughout, noise or distortions are absent. Jitter indicates a mixture of low frequency jitter (the "spread" around the 11.025 Hz sine) and periodic high frequency jitter. However, everything is well below -110 dB so it´s probably inaudible. Measurments are slightly better when the test signal is played back on SACD - this is exactly as it should be since it offers higher resolution. The SNR and Dynamic Range show the skill with which the engineers designed the PCB layout: the DACs are rated at -106 dB, I measured -104 dB which is a fantastic result. Still, I´m slightly disappointed because 20 Bit output quality theoretically allows for a SNR of -121 dB. I know, I know, I´m complaining on an extremely high level, furthermore if someone needs to be blamed it´s Burr Brown for constructing such 'noisy' DACs in the first place.

CD playback

CD material shows dynamic capabilities close to the reference files (transients seem a tad too timid), the stage is well represented albeit a bit too compact and not particularly stable; instruments tend to change their place. Furthermore, the timing is not very good for lower frequencies: bass sounds as if it "follows" the rest of the frequency spectrum where timing and snap are impeccable. Overall EQ displays a little fondness for bloated and too thick bass while treble is diminished a bit which hampers detail and resolution to be reproduced properly. But there are advantages as well: this player won´t ever sound strident, sibilant or shrill, it also won´t sound slow or boring because apart from the bass mids and treble show a lot of speed with a particularly enjoyable amount of snap. Yes, this player really grooves. Sonic colour is the area where the player clearly surpasses the reference; it adds a nice voluptous and engagingly wet yet precise euphonic sheen to the music. This sheen naturally is artificial and not the original but it´s still jolly good fun, therefore:

Sonic Balance:

Dynamics:

Resolution:

Stage / Ambiance:

Character:

SACD playback

When playing back SACDs the Pioneer DV-610 sounds... well, it doesn´t really sound. It was extremely difficult for me to hear any difference to my reference files at all. Dynamics are almost perfect, the timing problem audible with CD material vanished upon playing SACD. Staging sounded like a carbon copy of the reference, just like resolution, level of detail and colour. Still, stage and imaging on occasion show some tiny difference, sometimes instruments seem to be placed rather strange with the left channel sounding as if coming from behind (don´t know how else to describe it). But instead of creating a euphonic colour the player now sounds perfectly neutral and completely retains the character of the recording. Any deviation I´ve just described is tiny, but I have to mention it and I will therefore substract one point for dynamics & stage. The pristine sound with SACDs leaves me with only one possible rating, the highest I´ve ever given to a player:

Sonic Balance:

Dynamics:

Resolution:

Stage / Ambiance:

Character:

Pioneer DV-610 close-up