For all you Audiophiles here.
I'm not attempting to start a "Trigger Event" w/ this post. No matter what -please keep in mind that I'm honestly just attempting to share what information I found -with the results that I discovered with my 1st test comparisons.
"All players had an excellent frequency response, reproduced sound accurately, & we found nothing to fault when testing for signal-to-noise ratio, distortion & speed accuracy.
Therefore ( and I'm NOT making this up,)
"Sound Quality", was NOT EVER used as a performance factor in terms of rating or recommending, in the Overall Final Score, ANY particular disc player over another!
What I just stated is FACT.
Was it true that it was impossible to tell the difference between players analog outputs? With all the talk in different Audio Publications (like Stereo Review & WhatHi-Fi?) & different internet audio forums by so many different "experts" over which chip is "better" - I was now totally dumbfounded.
( for 2-Channel PCM Only ) All were tested using the same analog RCA interconnect cables ( Fusion AV's) and all players were plugged into my ONEAC ConditionOne Power supply.
For some strange odd reason, Pioneer used a Toshiba Delta-Sigma DAC instead of their DAC - even though the unit clearly advertised "Pulseflow" on the front faceplate. (WTF Pioneer, WTF???).
(YES- You can actually hear this in the sample)
based on the hand-full of those older machines we have tested so far, we can actually begin to understand why CR took the position that they did. Besides - and let's be honest, how many people at that point in time actually tried out different CD Players to see how that particular one sounded at home??
( Again -using the word "differences" here on purpose, as opposed to using words such as "better" or "worse", as that is not only subjective to one's personal taste -but truth be told - would also depend of how that particular player integrates with the rest of the gear ( receiver, or amp & speakers) in your personal playback system.