Using DVD Player as CD Player

[3x10^8]

Hey there everyone. I just had a quick question. Currently, I'm using my DVD player as my primary CD player. Is this "ok" to do? Am I getting the proper sound out of my CD's? To me, it seems logical to use a device with digital outs to play a digital format. Any thoughts on this? Sorry if this has been covered before.

If not "ok", do you recommend my purchasing a CD player with digital outs? or should I just purchase a plain-jane cd player?

Not sure if this is relevant, but my current setup consists of: Onkyo TX-SR602, Energy XL-250's, XL-150's, XL-C100, and Energy S8.3 sub.

Thanks for any advice in advance.

[MACCA350]

Using digital outs there's no difference. If you buy a separate CD player you're just wasting you money

cheers:)

[Dan Driscoll]

I always smile and shake my head when I hear comments like that.

It depends on the DACs and audio opamps (or tubes) in the various components. I'm still using the analog outputs of my 10 year old Carver CD player because CD's sounds better than if I use the digital ouput and allow my processor to do the D to A conversion. And it sounds a lot better than CDs played on my DVD player, regardless of whether the DVD player or processor does the D to A conversion.

FWIW, I agree with the "bits are bits" people that it shouldn't make a difference. But I've been into audio and electronics long enough to know that the real world often doesn't match match what 'should be'. So try hooking it up in several different combinations and see if you hear a difference.

[Pyrrho]

It is perfectly fine to use a DVD player to play CDs. I personally use a separate CD changer because I do not like the slow loading times of typical DVD players, and I like using a changer to play long pieces of music that continue on multiple CDs. With a DVD changer, typically I would have a longer pause between discs while the player loads the disc. As for sound quality, for you to accurately test that, you would need to level match the different players in order to have a meaningful test. Otherwise, because human hearing is not linear, if one is very slightly louder than the other, it will subjectively be heard as having more bass and more treble, and will often be described as being "fuller", "clearer", "more detailed" (of course one can hear more details if it is a bit louder!), etc., but often will not be noticed as being louder. This aspect of human hearing is why old stereo receivers typically had a "Loudness Compensation" switch that boosted the bass, and usually the treble as well. You can hear the effect for yourself simply by playing with the volume control when playing music that has plenty of bass. As the volume decreases, the bass appears to diminish faster than the midrange, which is simply the result of human hearing being nonlinear (hearing midrange has greater survival value than hearing frequency extremes). Most audiophiles do not bother to level match equipment, and therefore their listening tests are meaningless because the difference perceived, even if real, may simply be a slight difference in volume. Assuming that your equipment is not malfunctioning and operating in accordance with its specifications, it is doubtful if you would ever hear a difference between your current DVD player and other players with typical recordings if the players were properly level matched.

[sokrman14]

Well Put Dan Driscoll, but I have a question for you. My dad is using a Denon DVD3910 and AVR3805. I believe they use the same D/A converters, now should there be a difference between analog cables and a fiberoptic or their Denon Link? Just curious, but I agree with all of your other comments.

[Pyrrho]

I always smile and shake my head when I hear comments like that.

It depends on the DACs and audio opamps (or tubes) in the various components. I'm still using the analog outputs of my 10 year old Carver CD player because CD's sounds better than if I use the digital ouput and allow my processor to do the D to A conversion. And it sounds a lot better than CDs played on my DVD player, regardless of whether the DVD player or processor does the D to A conversion.

FWIW, I agree with the "bits are bits" people that it shouldn't make a difference. But I've been into audio and electronics long enough to know that the real world often doesn't match match what 'should be'. So try hooking it up in several different combinations and see if you hear a difference.

As I recall, many Carver CD players had built in processors to alter the sound (the name "digital time lens" comes to mind, though perhaps I am misremembering the name used). Do you have such processing in your player? If so, that will make an audible difference, and you will then not be comparing the same data.

[3x10^8]

I appreaciate the input from everyone. Thanks!

[mtrycrafts]

Welcome aboard, speed of light man:D Are you into physics?

[MACCA350]

Dan Driscoll wrote:
I'm still using the analog outputs of my 10 year old Carver CD player because CD's sounds better than if I use the digital output and allow my processor to do the D to A conversion.

This does nothing to answer 3x10^8's question, in this situation of course there is a sonic difference, I never said there was no difference between players when using the analogue outs(or for that matter comparing digital and analogue outs)

3x10^8 was asking if there is enough of a difference in the sound between using his current DVD player connected via DIGITAL and a separate CD player and connecting via DIGITAL to warrant the purchase?

The answer to the question is simply, NO.

cheers:)

[Dan Driscoll]

As I recall, many Carver CD players had built in processors to alter the sound (the name "digital time lens" comes to mind, though perhaps I am misremembering the name used). Do you have such processing in your player? If so, that will make an audible difference, and you will then not be comparing the same data.


No, mine does not have any additional processing. It has BB DACs and opamps, although I don't recall the exact model numbers, I haven't had it open for several years.

[Dan Driscoll]

Well Put Dan Driscoll, but I have a question for you. My dad is using a Denon DVD3910 and AVR3805. I believe they use the same D/A converters, now should there be a difference between analog cables and a fiberoptic or their Denon Link? Just curious, but I agree with all of your other comments.

The DACs are only part of the circuit. A very critical part, but other factors still come into play, such as the opamps and the power supply.

Assuming the circuits are the same design and use the same components, then in theory the only difference should be the tolerances of the various components, which would be well below the level that you could hear. So there should be no audible difference between using the analog output from the player or the digital ouptut and allowing the receiver to do the D to A conversion, as well as the amplification. However, in the real world there are always differences, the power supply probably being the biggest in this instance. The only way to really know is to listen.

[Dan Driscoll]

Dan Driscoll3x10^8 was asking if there is enough of a difference in the sound between using his current DVD player connected via DIGITAL and a separate CD player and connecting via DIGITAL to warrant the purchase?

The answer to the question is simply, NO.

cheers:)

I recommended an alternative, although in a roundabout manner. I'm telling him to try the analog outputs. He may be pleasantly surprised.

[westcott]

I always recommend keeping A/D and D\A conversions to a minimum.

Sending your CD output via analog only adds to the number of conversions necessary. Your CD player has to convert it to analog and then your receiver has to convert it back to digital. Not optimal.

Keeping your audio in the digital world is the better solution, especially with a digital connection most of the time.

[shokhead]

I recommended an alternative, although in a roundabout manner. I'm telling him to try the analog outputs. He may be pleasantly surprised.

Its more then likly he has better BM in the receiver then the player also. Most use dig. I play around with both but for the most part dig. So its more about the receiver when going dig.

[mtrycrafts]

I always recommend keeping A/D and D\A conversions to a minimum.

Sending your CD output via analog only adds to the number of conversions necessary. Your CD player has to convert it to analog and then your receiver has to convert it back to digital. Not optimal.

Keeping your audio in the digital world is the better solution, especially with a digital connection most of the time.


That is my take on this as well. :D Not that it matters much.

[Dan Driscoll]

I always recommend keeping A/D and D\A conversions to a minimum.

So do I, but I want the best DAC to be doing the conversion, whether it is in the player or the receiver.

Sending your CD output via analog only adds to the number of conversions necessary. Your CD player has to convert it to analog and then your receiver has to convert it back to digital. Not optimal.

Until 4-6 years ago, that was the case, only high end receivers and some processors had analog pass-thru. But there was a huge backlash against receivers and processors that digitized all inputs because very often a quality player would have better DACs and analog circuits than the receiver or processor. It also negated the advantages of an outboard DAC, which was becoming more common in mid-fi rigs as prices dropped. Another issue was cost, it is usually less expensive to upgrade a player, rather than the receiver or processor. As a result, most half-way decent receivers sold in the past 4-6 years and virtually all processors now have an analog pass-thru option, so that incoming analog signals are not digitized. This allows the user to listen and decide for themselves which configuration sounds better, or to add an out-board DAC.

So unless you have an older receiver without an analog pass-thru, the re-digitizing is not an issue. If you do have an older receiver, you may want to consider replacing it.

[Dan Driscoll]

Its more then likly he has better BM in the receiver then the player also. Most use dig. I play around with both but for the most part dig. So its more about the receiver when going dig.


We're talking stereo CD's, not multi-channel audio, so there is no bass management. The only exception would be if the OP has small main speakers and wants to send the bass signals to the sub-woofer. But he hasn't indicated that.

[westcott]

So do I, but I want the best DAC to be doing the conversion, whether it is in the player or the receiver.



Until 4-6 years ago, that was the case, only high end receivers and some processors had analog pass-thru. But there was a huge backlash against receivers and processors that digitized all inputs because very often a quality player would have better DACs and analog circuits than the receiver or processor. It also negated the advantages of an outboard DAC, which was becoming more common in mid-fi rigs as prices dropped. Another issue was cost, it is usually less expensive to upgrade a player, rather than the receiver or processor. As a result, most half-way decent receivers sold in the past 4-6 years and virtually all processors now have an analog pass-thru option, so that incoming analog signals are not digitized. This allows the user to listen and decide for themselves which configuration sounds better, or to add an out-board DAC.

So unless you have an older receiver without an analog pass-thru, the re-digitizing is not an issue. If you do have an older receiver, you may want to consider replacing it.

The CD player still has to convert the digitial information to analog to sent it out to the receiver via analog connections. That is even before it gets to the receiver.

[j_garcia]

Whether digital or analog, for redbook CDs, the bass management is still done at the receiver. The difference is where the D/A is taking place and it will have an influence on the sound. Whether or not it makes enough of a difference to YOU is something only you can decide. I use a separate CD/SACD player because it is a better SACD player, and while my DVD player is a very good with redbook CDs, I still use my CD player for them as well (digitally for CDs because my receiver cascades DACs for 2ch listening).

To the original question, YES you can use a DVD player for CD listening. Is it the best option? It depends on a lot of things like how much music do you listen to and how critical you are of the sound, if you ask me.

[Jack Hammer]

To the original question, YES you can use a DVD player for CD listening. Is it the best option? It depends on a lot of things like how much music do you listen to and how critical you are of the sound, if you ask me.
I fully agree with what j_garcia says, it really depends on how much you listen and how critical you are of the sound.

I use my dvd player to play cd's. However, after reading a similar thread last year I tried hooking up a low end 5 cd player I had laying around that only played sometimes. There music from the cd player sounded better to me. It seemed to have more range and better bass. I tried both the optical and the analog connections. This was explained as something to do with laser color or width, I don't fully recall. It was too much trouble to use the cd player as it was very unreliable. So I still use my dvd player.

That being said, the difference in sound quality wasn't enough for me to go out and spend an extra $100 or so on a separate cd player, though if someone gave me one I would use it. If you have access to one, hook it up and hear for yourself and make up your own mind. For me, my dvd player is plenty adequate for now.

[Dan Driscoll]

The CD player still has to convert the digitial information to analog to sent it out to the receiver via analog connections. That is even before it gets to the receiver.


Yes, and if the CD player has better DACs that how I want it to be. Assuming the receiver has an analog pass-thru, the analog audio signal is inputted to the receiver, amplified and sent to the speakers, without being re-digitized.

[Dan Driscoll]

Whether digital or analog, for redbook CDs, the bass management is still done at the receiver.

What bass management? Redbook is a 2 channel format, main left and right speakers only. There is no provision in the Redbook spec for bass management and if you have fullrange main speakers, you don't need it.

If you really want to send the low frequencies to a sub-woofer, you could have the receiver apply bass management to the digital signal. But I would suggest that an analog solution, such as the Outlaw Audio ICBM, would be a much better option.

[shokhead]

Hey there everyone. I just had a quick question. Currently, I'm using my DVD player as my primary CD player. Is this "ok" to do? Am I getting the proper sound out of my CD's? To me, it seems logical to use a device with digital outs to play a digital format. Any thoughts on this? Sorry if this has been covered before.

If not "ok", do you recommend my purchasing a CD player with digital outs? or should I just purchase a plain-jane cd player?

Not sure if this is relevant, but my current setup consists of: Onkyo TX-SR602, Energy XL-250's, XL-150's, XL-C100, and Energy S8.3 sub.

Thanks for any advice in advance.

LOL Got all this? Look,using a dvd player for cd's is fine and its one less thing to have.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Hook up your DVD player to your onkyo AVR with a digital connector.

Now also connect your DVD player to your AVR with the red & white RCA stereo cables (put it on input "CD").

Play CD in your DVD, once listening to Onkyo's 'DVD' input, and once listening to Onkyo's 'CD' input.

You can now make an informed decision as to which DAC you like better.

You may purchase/borrow a new CD player later and try again at a later date.

Continue trying until you find a CD player with a DAC you like better than your AVR's.

Now decide if the upgrade is worth the cost of the new player.

[Geno]

I have a Denon 2910 for DVD-A, SACDs and DTS audio discs, but got a Pioneer Elite 300 disc megachanger for regular redbook CDs. I can't tell the difference between the changer and Denon player, but the convenience of having my entire redbook CD collection in the changer is worth its weight in gold. I can program playlists to fill my home with music all day and still listen to hi-rez stuff when the mood strikes.

[Dan Driscoll]

For a site called "Audioholics" I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of interest in in high quality music playback, particularly 2 channel stereo. From what I've seen here the emphasis is overwhelmingly on HT audio, rather than on music. I'm not talking about spending ridiculous sums on uber-expensive gear or esoteric cables, just investing in good quality, high value equipment and getting the most out of it.

[shokhead]

For a site called "Audioholics" I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of interest in in high quality music playback, particularly 2 channel stereo. From what I've seen here the emphasis is overwhelmingly on HT audio, rather than on music. I'm not talking about spending ridiculous sums on uber-expensive gear or esoteric cables, just investing in good quality, high value equipment and getting the most out of it.

Right. A good DVD Player. Now you get it.

[Dan Driscoll]

Right. A good DVD Player. Now you get it.


Problem is, I've never heard a DVD player that could match a quality dedicated CD player for stereo playback. Throw in a good outboard DAC and it isn't even close.

Hey, if music isn't your thing or you're more interested in home theater, that's fine. Or maybe ease of use and simplicity is important to you. But if you're serious about music, there are better options than a DVD player and they don't have to be overly expensive. The used market is your friend when searching fo high quality, inexpensive audio (or HT) equipment.

[shokhead]

I'm much more music then movies but my dvd player plays just as good, cd's then any cd player in my price range but really that isnt much of a factor while most use the dig connection anyway for cd's.

[j_garcia]

What bass management? Redbook is a 2 channel format, main left and right speakers only. There is no provision in the Redbook spec for bass management and if you have fullrange main speakers, you don't need it.

If you really want to send the low frequencies to a sub-woofer, you could have the receiver apply bass management to the digital signal. But I would suggest that an analog solution, such as the Outlaw Audio ICBM, would be a much better option.

Even for 2ch, many will still listen with the sub, and if your receiver is doing bass management on the signal, it will be applied to 2ch regardless of analog or digital is what I was getting at.

There are few manufacturers that make full range speakers and even fewer who own them.

FYI: The ICBM has been discontinued and is no longer available except used.

[Dan Driscoll]

Even for 2ch, many will still listen with the sub, and if your receiver is doing bass management on the signal, it will be applied to 2ch regardless of analog or digital is what I was getting at.

Most decent receivers have analog pass-thru, which means the receiver will NOT apply digital bass management. Some of the Outlaw receiver/processors, have what is basically an ICBM built-in. However, that's analog bass management, not digital. I think a few other high end receivers and proceesors have something similar, but other than Outlaw, I'm not aware of any in the entry level or mid-fi range.

There are few manufacturers that make full range speakers and even fewer who own them.

You are joking, right? Or are you only familiar with HT companies? I'll agree that few HT electronics compaines (Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo, Panasonic) make full range speakers. But even their bookshelf and satellite speakers suck, so I wouldn't be buying any speakers from them, regardless of type.

In the music world there are quite a few companies that make full-range speakers and quite a few people who buy them. Some names that immediately come to mind are Vandersteen, Totem, B&W, VMPS, KEF, RBH, Tannoy, Thiel and Joseph Audio, just to name a few.

BTW, full-range speakers are also available from a number of companies often considered to be HT speaker manufacturers, such as Paradigm, NHT, PSB, Monitor Audio, among others. Paradigm alone has a half a dozen different full range models, at various price points.

FYI: The ICBM has been discontinued and is no longer available except used.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the update. I checked the Outlaw forum and the impression I got was they feel a lot of the newer players have decent bass management built-in, so they don't need an ICBM type device. That's probably true, even my S-N SD-860 has excellent bass management and time alignment, better than what's available in most mid-fi receivers on the market right now and much better than almost any receiver or processor even just a few years old.

[j_garcia]

Most decent receivers have analog pass-thru, which means the receiver will NOT apply digital bass management. Some of the Outlaw receiver/processors, have what is basically an ICBM built-in. However, that's analog bass management, not digital. I think a few other high end receivers and proceesors have something similar, but other than Outlaw, I'm not aware of any in the entry level or mid-fi range.[quote]

I have "source direct", which is essentially passing pure analog through the receiver, and it does bypass tone controls and bass management. Basically, the only time I use it though, is to listen with the sub turned off with 2ch. The majority of the time I want the sub on so the receiver handles the x-over.

[quote]You are joking, right? Or are you only familiar with HT companies? I'll agree that few HT electronics compaines (Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo, Panasonic) make full range speakers. But even their bookshelf and satellite speakers suck, so I wouldn't be buying any speakers from them, regardless of type.

Interestingly, my friend owns some Sony tower speakers and I have to say I was quite surprised at how good they sound.

In the music world there are quite a few companies that make full-range speakers and quite a few people who buy them. Some names that immediately come to mind are Vandersteen, Totem, B&W, VMPS, KEF, RBH, Tannoy, Thiel and Joseph Audio, just to name a few.

When I say few, I'm referring to the general public. There are always people who are looking to buy true full range speakers, but they are definitely NOT the majority of the market. These are people who are after great music performance in my experience (I would probably call them "purists"), and those are usually the higher models from most of those manufacturers; and cost wise that puts them out of the league of the average person. When I say "full range", I mean a speaker that is truly capbable of mid-20s response, and those would be few. That was why I made the comment - because many consider a tower speaker to be a full range speaker, and in most cases that is not true.

Joseph Audios are some of my favorite speakers :)

[Buckle-meister]

Even for 2ch, many will still listen with the sub...

I agree as I am one of them. I used to be of the opinion that 2-channel material should be played only through two channels. Period. Then I got over my ignorance and appreciated that with my sub properly integrated, I obtained a frequency response at the listening position far flatter than I otherwise could've, and my speakers are by no means poor.

There are few manufacturers that make full range speakers and even fewer who own them.

In terms of truly full-range speakers, again I agree. Such speakers typically cost a small fortune and I've little doubt there's a good reason for it.

...full-range speakers are also available from a number of companies often considered to be HT speaker manufacturers, such as Paradigm, NHT, PSB, Monitor Audio...

Monitor Audio? Monitor Audio were making speakers long before Home Theatre became the fashion.

[Dan Driscoll]

Monitor Audio? Monitor Audio were making speakers long before Home Theatre became the fashion.


Hence the use of the phrase "often considered to be HT speaker manufacturers". When you're main outlet is through the Good Guys and similar stores, you're going to get labled as an HT speaker.

BTW, who's Monitor retailing through on the West Coast now that GG has gone under?

[nibhaz]

Hook up your DVD player to your onkyo AVR with a digital connector.

Now also connect your DVD player to your AVR with the red & white RCA stereo cables (put it on input "CD").

Play CD in your DVD, once listening to Onkyo's 'DVD' input, and once listening to Onkyo's 'CD' input.

You can now make an informed decision as to which DAC you like better.

You may purchase/borrow a new CD player later and try again at a later date.

Continue trying until you find a CD player with a DAC you like better than your AVR's.

Now decide if the upgrade is worth the cost of the new player.

This will only work if you first level match the outputs of the player. It is quite common for there to be a several dB difference between the digital and analog outputs on a given player, and research tells us that we perceive the louder output as better. So in order for this to be a worth while test you must level match the outputs and devise a means to switch between the two without your knowledge and then if you can consistently pick one over the other will you have a valuable result.

PS using your DVD player is fine!

[nibhaz]

I would love to see an affordable 20-20k speaker….if a set of speakers cost as much as a new compact car I don’t think it’s reasonable to call them affordable, at least not for the common man.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

For a site called "Audioholics" I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of interest in in high quality music playback, particularly 2 channel stereo. From what I've seen here the emphasis is overwhelmingly on HT audio, rather than on music. I'm not talking about spending ridiculous sums on uber-expensive gear or esoteric cables, just investing in good quality, high value equipment and getting the most out of it.

http://www.hometheateroholics.com takes too long to type into a browser. There are a number of websites I check before this one for all my music-related information (I like Head-Fi and don't even own good headphones).

I would love to see an affordable 20-20k speaker….if a set of speakers cost as much as a new compact car I don’t think it’s reasonable to call them affordable, at least not for the common man.

Paradigm Monitor 90P's hit low 20's and costs under $2000 (which I'm considering for my next upgrade).

[mfabien]

Hey there everyone. I just had a quick question. Currently, I'm using my DVD player as my primary CD player. Is this "ok" to do? Am I getting the proper sound out of my CD's? To me, it seems logical to use a device with digital outs to play a digital format. Any thoughts on this? Sorry if this has been covered before.

If not "ok", do you recommend my purchasing a CD player with digital outs? or should I just purchase a plain-jane cd player?

Not sure if this is relevant, but my current setup consists of: Onkyo TX-SR602, Energy XL-250's, XL-150's, XL-C100, and Energy S8.3 sub.

Thanks for any advice in advance.

I have the same Front and Center channel speakers as you have. My rear speakers are Energy Take 2.2. My receiver is a Yamaha RX-V540 and the sub is a SVS PB12 ISD.

Using a Sony 5 disc DVD player, CDs and DTS music discs sound great.

My suggestion is as follows:

If you like to shuffle music selections with CDs, get a CD carousel player.
If you like to play DVD Concerts and music, a DVD changer with 6 disc "resume memory" is the way to go. In this latter case, you will not have CD shuffle ability.

[Dan Driscoll]

Paradigm Monitor 90P's hit low 20's and costs under $2000 (which I'm considering for my next upgrade).


I used to have 90Ps, with the built-in subs they were excellent HT speakers. But they weren't very good for music (IMO), so I eventually replaced them with a pair of used Vandersteen Model 2C's. The Vandy's don't have the bass punch of the 90Ps, but they do get down to the upper 20's and are much more musical than the 90Ps could ever dream of being.

BTW, a new pair of the current Model 2C Signatures cost less than $1800. But I will admit the 90Ps are a much prettier speaker. ;)

[westcott]

Paradigm Monitor 90P's hit low 20's and costs under $2000 (which I'm considering for my next upgrade).

I considered Paradigm before I bought my speakers last year but the 90P's were difficult to place acoustically (subwoofer placement is an art unto itself) and physically (power requirements).

I also thought that it was not the ideal solution if you are going with a 5.1 system or greater using bass managment and a separate subwoofer(s).

I think the 90's are much better suited for two channel listening where a subwoofer may not fit or may not be wanted. They do sound good though.

[j_garcia]

The 90Ps have good bass, but the rest of the speaker still sounds like the Monitor line. I'd have to agree with Dan, musical capability is the Monitor line's weakness. If it is music you are after, I'd look elsewhere.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

The 90Ps have good bass, but the rest of the speaker still sounds like the Monitor line. I'd have to agree with Dan, musical capability is the Monitor line's weakness. If it is music you are after, I'd look elsewhere.

Is it better than the performance line?

[Dan Driscoll]

Is it better than the performance line?


You could step up to the Paradigm Reference Studio line or even higher to the Signature line. The Studio line is a significant step up from the Monitors and the Signature line is even better. If you like Pardigm (and they do make good speakers) that's a route well worth considering.

[WmAx]

So try hooking it up in several different combinations and see if you hear a difference.

If you mean this to be a sighted comparision, and without matching levels within 0.1 dB, then this is not a reliable way to discern actual differences. Such uncontrolled protocol leaves one wide open to psychologically based biases that have nothing to do with actual sound difference(s).

-Chris

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

You could step up to the Paradigm Reference Studio line or even higher to the Signature line. The Studio line is a significant step up from the Monitors and the Signature line is even better. If you like Pardigm (and they do make good speakers) that's a route well worth considering.

But I could also buy 4 pairs of 90Ps for the price of a pair of S8s.

[j_garcia]

But I could also buy 4 pairs of 90Ps for the price of a pair of S8s.

They will be louder, but still not sound as good :D

I outgrew the Monitor line when I started auditioning and had a shootout at my place (Titans, Minis, Axiom M3ti, GR A/V-1). I figured the logical step up would be the Studios, but I found other speakers that I liked better.

[Dan Driscoll]

But I could also buy 4 pairs of 90Ps for the price of a pair of S8s.

Yep, and then you would have 8 speakers that sound bad playing music, instead of 2 that sound good. ;)


BTW, you could also try the Studio 100s, which aren't as good as the S8s, but are much better than the 90Ps. One drawback to the S8s and the Studio 100s, you really, really need a separate amp, at least 200 wpc, to drive them.

Or as j-garcia already noted, you could look at other brands. As you've probably already figured out, I'm a big fan of Vandersteen, but I also like VMPS, Meadowlark (now OOB), Talon, RBH, etc. I believe a pair of Vandy Model 3A Signatures cost close to what a pair of Studio 100s run, but I think they are better than the S8s. And the Model 5A is in a completely different class.

[MDS]

One drawback to the S8s and the Studio 100s, you really, really need a separate amp, at least 200 wpc, to drive them.

What is the basis for that kind of statement? I see it all the time and it makes absolutely no sense. It is akin to saying that the speakers sound terrible unless you are playing music extremely loud. The vast majority of the time you won't be using anywhere near the 200 wpc available.

Unless the idea is that a high powered amp will also be more stable driving low impedance loads and the S8s are tough to drive, you don't 'need' any particular power capability - all you need is enough power to drive them as loud as you would like.

[Dan Driscoll]

What is the basis for that kind of statement? I see it all the time and it makes absolutely no sense.

The quick explanation is that receiver manufacturers lie, most of them can't achieve their rated power with all channels driven, sometimes they can't even do it with only 2 channels driven. Or they can only do it at 1KHz, but not when a mutli-tone signal is being amplified. This has been researched and documented a number of times in various magazines and review sites.

The second thing is that bigger speakers with more drivers, especially more bass drivers, tend to have fairly low efficiency and need a lot of power to drive all those cones. You also lose a lot of power through the more complex crossovers that many large 3 and 4 way speakers employ. A receiver may be able to adequetely power them a lower volumes, but not at high volumes.

And finally, people who spend the money for large, multi-driver full-range speakers generally do not buy them to listen at 80 dB in a 12x15 foot room, they got them to drive a loud volumes in large rooms. That demands power that few receivers are capable of delivering without distortion or clipping.

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE=Dan Driscoll]The quick explanation is that receiver manufacturers lie,

Lie? Where? Which one claims all channels driven then cannot meet its claimed power????

most of them can't achieve their rated power with all channels driven, [b]

Who said you need all channels driven at the same instant??? Any software to have 0dB FS in all channels at the same instant?

[b]sometimes they can't even do it with only 2 channels driven.

Which ones?

Or they can only do it at 1KHz, but not when a mutli-tone signal is being amplified.

OK, you drop a few % on the dynamic peaks, maybe, since they are small banded most likely, not full bandwidth.

This has been researched and documented a number of times in various magazines and review sites.

Which one demonstrates a real need for all channels at the same instant?

The second thing is that bigger speakers with more drivers, especially more bass drivers, tend to have fairly low efficiency and need a lot of power to drive all those cones.

Perhaps a sub is needed, nothing more.

You also lose a lot of power through the more complex crossovers that many large 3 and 4 way speakers employ.

Oh, but speaker sensitivity is determined with those crossovers in place.

A receiver may be able to adequetely power them a lower volumes, but not at high volumes.

Nonsense. It will drive them to the amps design limits, period.

And finally, people who spend the money for large, multi-driver full-range speakers generally do not buy them to listen at 80 dB in a 12x15 foot room, they got them to drive a loud volumes in large rooms.


Have you polled them all? Or a statistical representative sample? Or, perhaps just wishful thinking and speculation? Well, at 80dB, that should be well below 1 watts, far from its max power. It is all relative.

That demands power that few receivers are capable of delivering without distortion or clipping.

Maybe, maybe not.

[Jack Dotson]

For a site called "Audioholics" I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of interest in in high quality music playback, particularly 2 channel stereo. From what I've seen here the emphasis is overwhelmingly on HT audio, rather than on music. I'm not talking about spending ridiculous sums on uber-expensive gear or esoteric cables, just investing in good quality, high value equipment and getting the most out of it.

I "hear" you Dan. :) I mean, isn't all about extracting that last little detail to get as close to that allusive sound in our minds as possible?

If you'll recall, we had a discussion abot the the Sherwood SD-860. BTW, your review was right on the money. at the time I had ordered the SD-860 and the P-965. The 965 was defective, it locked up and I could not get it to function from the front panel or remote, so I still have no idea how this processor sounds. Anyhow, it went back and I ended up forking over the extra bucks for the Arcam AVP-700.

I know some are asking what this has to do with this thread, please hold tight, I'll get there.

I mentioned that I also had a Sony NS999ES DVDP and was fairly happy with it's SACD performance, but that it was lousy with red books. I also tried the digital output to my Outlaw model-950 and the result wasn't any better. Additionally, I wanted a source that would paly DVDA so I could buy the titles available on this format as well.

You said you didn't expect the 860 to be as good as my 999ES and you were right. This unit does video very well, maybe even better than my Sony. It's a great DVDP for the price, but it doesn't cut it for my audio needs, which is what I bought it for to start with. So now I have two very good DVDP's, but am still looking for someting to do a credible job with my audio.

Note: I am very picky when it comes to my music. The Sherwood only cost a tad over $400 and for this price it's a steal. I also have to mention that it doesn't have allot of playing time so it might improve after it burns in for awhile. Bottom line is at this price it's going to be hard to beat and many/most will probably be very happy with it's audio perfomance and as a DVDP for HT it's exceptional. In fairness, I'm trying to get top tier audio performance from a budget machine which was disigned first and foremost for HT.

Enter the Arcam AVP-700. This joker is going to hurt my pocket book big time. Movies and concert DVD's have never been more enjoyable. The sound quality of this processor is exceptional. I'm talking about using the digital output from the DVDP to the Arcam. Also, I can now listen to my redbook CD's in the same manner and am very happy, but I still have to wonder how it would compare to a dedicated CDP with the same DAC's, etc.

So I now have a better HT then ever before and I can listen to my RB CD's again. Progress! I can also get acceptable SACD performance from my Sony, but then I still have a problem with DVDA. And, to make matters more complicated, the Arcam sounds so good that RB CD's are right there with my SACD's. Make me curious how the SACD's would match up if I had a really good RB CDP in my system? Say a Rega Apollo, Naim N5i, Arcam CD-192, etc.

This is what I'm considering. I listen to my music in two channel 95% of the time. The reason I got into SACD's to start with was because of supposedly better resolution and multi-channel.

Might just keep the players I got for multi-channel and HT and try upgrading my source. Better yet would be if I could find a machine that performs as well as those mentioned, but that was also a fantastic SACD.

Does one of these exist that an average Joe and afford? I don't know, but I'm looking. :D


O.K. so what does all this have to do with this thread. Can he use his DVDP to play back CD's or is he not getting the level of performance that he should? That was the question, right?

He already said he was playing CD's on the machine so he obviously knows he has the capability, but IMO he's wanting to find out if he's getting the best sound he can from his CD's, and with my experience the answer is yes and no. As many of you have already noted, if he uses the digital output he's going to experience the sound his receiver has to offer. If he uses analog he's gong to experience the sound the source has to offer.

This is why I've shared my own experinces and conclusions. Everything is relevant. SACD was my strong suite when I had my Outlaw pre-amp, but now the Arcam is showing me that it wasn't all that and that I could possibly do much better, even with standard CD's.

After many, many years in this hobby I've finally come to the realization that if you want really good sound you cannot overlook the source. I've always believed that speakers made the biggest difference, and they are very important, but I now realize it's all about the source.

The rest of the equipment can only relay what they're given. So to the original poster I say if quality sound is your objective, buy the best CDP you can afford. That's what I'm going to do.

There, that's my 15 cents. :p

[Dan Driscoll]

[b]

You're entitled to your opinion and I really don't have any interest in trying to change it. My own opinions are based on over 25 years of professional experience in electronics, including analog power amp testing, design and modification work, plus analog and digital signal processing.I've been an audio enthusist (as opposed to an audiophile) even longer and I've had a lot of different equipment in a lot of different systems. I've also spent a lot of time with other enthusiasts, listening to their equipment and in stores and showrooms, plus I've participated in several blind and double blind tests. I believe my background allows me to form a reasonably well informed opinion, based on knowledge and experience. But even with that background, I don't always know why one piece of equipment sounds better than another, which is why the final test is always to listen.

IME, separate amps almost always sound better than receiver amps. IME, people who buy full range floor standing speakers did not buy them to listen at low volume levels. IME, most HT receivers don't do a very good job with music, but most people don't really care. IME it requires a lot of effort to properly integrate a sub-woofer with bookshelf speakers for decent music playback and most people don't bother, as long as it shakes the room during movies. IME, the analog output from most decent quality CD players sounds better than using the digital output to a receiver. IME a good outboard DAC sounds even better than the analog output. IME vinyl records have limited dynamic and frequency range, plus they have hiss, pops, snaps and all kinds of other noise. But the very best vinyl still sounds better than CDs, SACDs or DVD-A. And tubes do color the music, but it can still sound incredible.

Feel free to disagree.

[shokhead]

You're entitled to your opinion and I really don't have any interest in trying to change it. My own opinions are based on over 25 years of professional experience in electronics, including analog power amp testing, design and modification work, plus analog and digital signal processing.I've been an audio enthusist (as opposed to an audiophile) even longer and I've had a lot of different equipment in a lot of different systems. I've also spent a lot of time with other enthusiasts, listening to their equipment and in stores and showrooms, plus I've participated in several blind and double blind tests. I believe my background allows me to form a reasonably well informed opinion, based on knowledge and experience. But even with that background, I don't always know why one piece of equipment sounds better than another, which is why the final test is always to listen.

IME, separate amps almost always sound better than receiver amps. IME, people who buy full range floor standing speakers did not buy them to listen at low volume levels. IME, most HT receivers don't do a very good job with music, but most people don't really care. IME it requires a lot of effort to properly integrate a sub-woofer with bookshelf speakers for decent music playback and most people don't bother, as long as it shakes the room during movies. IME, the analog output from most decent quality CD players sounds better than using the digital output to a receiver. IME a good outboard DAC sounds even better than the analog output. IME vinyl records have limited dynamic and frequency range, plus they have hiss, pops, snaps and all kinds of other noise. But the very best vinyl still sounds better than CDs, SACDs or DVD-A. And tubes do color the music, but it can still sound incredible.

Feel free to disagree.

A lot of people know most of that but alot have to buy acordingly to the space they have,always the WAF and money. As for Vinyl, like i say,i can eat cereal and get the same snap,crackel and pop but like all the above,each has a place.

[tbewick]

You're entitled to your opinion and I really don't have any interest in trying to change it. My own opinions are based on over 25 years of professional experience in electronics, including analog power amp testing, design and modification work, plus analog and digital signal processing.I've been an audio enthusist (as opposed to an audiophile) even longer and I've had a lot of different equipment in a lot of different systems. I've also spent a lot of time with other enthusiasts, listening to their equipment and in stores and showrooms, plus I've participated in several blind and double blind tests. I believe my background allows me to form a reasonably well informed opinion, based on knowledge and experience. But even with that background, I don't always know why one piece of equipment sounds better than another, which is why the final test is always to listen.

I wouldn't bother trying to change mtrycrafts opinion - he's a scientist, and what would they know, eh? Scientific method? Rubbish, that's what I think. Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, what would they know? Just listen, that's it! Sometimes I can hear those spaces between the samples on my CD player - it drives me nuts. I am planning an upgrade soon - some colouring pens to enhance the musicality of my CD collection.


IME, separate amps almost always sound better than receiver amps. IME, people who buy full range floor standing speakers did not buy them to listen at low volume levels. IME, most HT receivers don't do a very good job with music, but most people don't really care. IME it requires a lot of effort to properly integrate a sub-woofer with bookshelf speakers for decent music playback and most people don't bother, as long as it shakes the room during movies. IME, the analog output from most decent quality CD players sounds better than using the digital output to a receiver. IME a good outboard DAC sounds even better than the analog output. IME vinyl records have limited dynamic and frequency range, plus they have hiss, pops, snaps and all kinds of other noise. But the very best vinyl still sounds better than CDs, SACDs or DVD-A. And tubes do color the music, but it can still sound incredible.

What bugs me is that there isn't a musicality rating given for amplifiers. A scale out of ten would be good. My Denon A/V unit would probably only get a 4.6. Hell, you could have one for CD players as well! Why bother with harmonic distortion, frequency range, these things have absolutely no bearing on musical performance.

Feel free to disagree.

No, in my humble opinion I agree with everything you say. Now I have to go, I've got an appointment with my homeopathic advisor.

[PENG]

It is a good thing for people who come here to ask questions to get responses from both sides (e.g., those who claim separates almost always sound better and those who claim it depends, or the difference are not audible). I believe people from both sides do based their comments on their personal experience and/or published specifications. After reading enough seemingly contradicting comments, people looking for answers will naturally be forced to go and listen for themselves.

[Dan Driscoll]

I wouldn't bother trying to change mtrycrafts opinion - he's a scientist, and what would they know, eh? Scientific method? Rubbish, that's what I think. Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, what would they know? Just listen, that's it! Sometimes I can hear those spaces between the samples on my CD player - it drives me nuts. I am planning an upgrade soon - some colouring pens to enhance the musicality of my CD collection.

Excuse me while I say "Bull****". Feel free to disageee with me, but don't try twist what I write into something that I didn't say.

I've spent far too long in a branch of the electronics industry where specifications and performance are far more critical than anything the audio industry has ever even dreamed of. Industries where 0.1 dB of amplitude variation, 0.1 hertz frequency fluctuation or 0.01* of phase shift are unacceptable. I know very well the technical side electronics and I demand quality design in my equipment.

But what the spec-heads always forget is that there are no specs for how human beings hear. We say 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz, but even that's a joke, very few adults can actually hear over that entire range. Even among those who can, their sensitivity at various frequencies is different for every single one. Nobody has a flat hearing curve, so what good does having a perfectly flat output do you, other than as an ideal? What you really want is a system where the output matches the hearing of the person who is listening.

Specifications are fine as a starting point, but keep in mind that for a lot of specs there are no standards. Without knowing the measurment method used, a lot of specs are meaningless, even though they may look good in the sales brochure. What specs are really useful for is pointing you in in a direction, letting you know what equipment might be worth doing a demo with. Listening and getting what sounds good to you is always the best choice, regardless of the specs.

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE=Dan Driscoll]
IME, separate amps almost always sound better than receiver amps.

And this is based on credible protocol, or like most other audiophiles flaws.
I am sure you are not exempt from biases that would ruin many a comparisons, right?

IME, people who buy full range floor standing speakers did not buy them to listen at low volume levels.

Oh, and competent speakers cannot be driven loud with a receiver? Please.


IME, most HT receivers don't do a very good job with music,

And the measure evidence on them is where? Which specs are you inferring that would lead you to this conclusion?
I am sure you have conducted some DBT comparisons for supporting this? Or being part of your hypothesis?

IME, the analog output from most decent quality CD players sounds better than using the digital output to a receiver.

Perhaps, or not. Again, how did you compare? Biased?

IME vinyl records have limited dynamic and frequency range, plus they have hiss, pops, snaps and all kinds of other noise. But the very best vinyl still sounds better than CDs, SACDs or DVD-A.

Really? It can, if you compare it to an orange. Certainly not based on technical reasons of the digital medial. For that, you have zero evidence, no matter how long you have been at it.


Feel free to disagree.


Thanks. I feel better now.

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE=Dan Driscoll]. Nobody has a flat hearing curve, so what good does having a perfectly flat output do you, other than as an ideal? What you really want is a system where the output matches the hearing of the person who is listening.

I thought you had all that experience and you would know why. I was wrong.

Listening and getting what sounds good to you is always the best choice, regardless of the specs.

And bias? How do you deal with bias? Or that does not matter.

[MDS]

What you really want is a system where the output matches the hearing of the person who is listening.

Sounds like a great business idea. You could build a staff of engineers and doctors. Have people come in and submit to a hearing test with the doctors and then have the engineers build a system that compenstates for their particular hearing capabilities and/or deficiencies.

Of course the people that buy such a system better be reclusive loners because if they ever have company over for dinner, their guests sure won't appreciate the system because their hearing is different.

[mtrycrafts]

Sounds like a great business idea. You could build a staff of engineers and doctors. Have people come in and submit to a hearing test with the doctors and then have the engineers build a system that compenstates for their particular hearing capabilities and/or deficiencies.

Of course the people that buy such a system better be reclusive loners because if they ever have company over for dinner, their guests sure won't appreciate the system because their hearing is different.


I guess all those years of experience was for not.

[TAINT]

Will a DVD player sound as good as a dedicated CD player at the same price point? Probably not.

Even with separate power supplies, and separate video/audio boards and DACs, a DVD player costing 300$ won't have the same SQ as a 300$ CD player of the same brand (even used as a transport- ie, digital out), as digital signal out (transport) DVD config, is still highly dependant on it's power supply.

So, you will be able to hear a difference if your rig is able to reveal it.

[Dan Driscoll]

Ah, the spec-head absolutists. Tell me, why do you even bother to demo equipment? Just set a budget, decide what features you want and then buy the component with the best specs that matches. No need to actually listen to it before you buy, according to what you're saying, the specs tell you everything you need to know.

I use to be a spec-head myself, until I found that some gear sounded better even though it had "inferior" specs. Now I use them as a guide, but I buy what sounds best to me, even if it doesn't have specs as good as another piece.

[Dan Driscoll]

Listening and getting what sounds good to you is always the best choice, regardless of the specs.

And bias? How do you deal with bias? Or that does not matter.


Why should the buyer care about bias? It is their own bias, what's wrong with buying what suits their own own preferences, as long as it sounds good to them? If someone has poor high frequency sensitivity a bright speaker may sound good to them, but be a bad choice for someone else. Are you suggesting that person not buy equipment that sounds good to them, just because it doesn't have the best specs? Or was I right in my previous post, do you really buy audio gear based solely on specs?

[MACCA350]

But what the spec-heads always forget is that there are no specs for how human beings hear. We say 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz, but even that's a joke, very few adults can actually hear over that entire range. Even among those who can, their sensitivity at various frequencies is different for every single one. Nobody has a flat hearing curve, so what good does having a perfectly flat output do you, other than as an ideal? What you really want is a system where the output matches the hearing of the person who is listening.

You hear a cymbal crash live(you hear it with the unique flaws in your hearing).

Next you hear the same cymbal crash on a system that takes into account your particular hearing flaws.

What happens, possibly your brain will tell you that the second scenario doesn't sound quite right because you are used to hearing the world with your unique hearing.

Personally I believe that the perfect audio system would be completely transparent(uncolored), so if your listening to a recorded symphony it sounds the same(in a perfect world) as if you were in the studio.

This is just my opinion and what I keep in mind when looking at equipment.

cheers:)

[tbewick]

Excuse me while I say "Bull****". Feel free to disageee with me, but don't try twist what I write into something that I didn't say.

My point was that a scientist devises a fair test when comparing equipment. Subjective comparisions are unreliable and using them to criticise DVD players for sounding bad is deeply flawed.

I've spent far too long in a branch of the electronics industry where specifications and performance are far more critical than anything the audio industry has ever even dreamed of. Industries where 0.1 dB of amplitude variation, 0.1 hertz frequency fluctuation or 0.01* of phase shift are unacceptable. I know very well the technical side electronics and I demand quality design in my equipment.

Just because the hi-fi industry has perfected their equipment to such a fine degree does not mean such minute variations are - in the real world - truly problematic. Do you really think a variation of 0.1 dB in your amplifier will make any difference when the average, acoustically untreated room will have dips and peaks all over the place? not to mention slap echoes and other acoustical problems. According to a THX guide I once read, you should consider yourself very lucky if an untreated/unequalised room has variations of +/- 3 dB.

But what the spec-heads always forget is that there are no specs for how human beings hear. We say 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz, but even that's a joke, very few adults can actually hear over that entire range. Even among those who can, their sensitivity at various frequencies is different for every single one. Nobody has a flat hearing curve, so what good does having a perfectly flat output do you, other than as an ideal? What you really want is a system where the output matches the hearing of the person who is listening.

Your example of human hearing sensitivity actually shows off how good the Compact Disc format is. Its frequency range will be more than enough for virtually everyone who listens to it. There's probably a scientific journal somewhere which has the human hearing sensitivity to frequency plotted out as a Gaussian distribution. I'm sure if you asked Chris he could point you in the direction of some perceptual research papers on human hearing.

Specifications are fine as a starting point, but keep in mind that for a lot of specs there are no standards. Without knowing the measurment method used, a lot of specs are meaningless, even though they may look good in the sales brochure. What specs are really useful for is pointing you in in a direction, letting you know what equipment might be worth doing a demo with. Listening and getting what sounds good to you is always the best choice, regardless of the specs.

I'd entirely agree that specifications aren't altogether that useful. I still have never seen a CD player with a total harmonic distortion rating more than 0.1%. Whichever way you look at it, that clearly does suggest the CD player is not introducing much harmonic distortion.

I'd also agree that there isn't any harm done buying better equipment, but I don't like the almost perverse way extolling the virtues of such unnecessarily expensive equipment has on the psychology of the individual. You begin to have doubts about all your equipment - your speaker cables, your equipment rack, your power cable, the amount of negative feedback in your amplifier... The list is as endless as the subjective listener will take without smelling BS. These, I would say in virtually all cases, are irrational concerns, and hamper your enjoyment of hi-fi. They are also an insult to the designers of low cost equipment.

Listening and getting what sounds good to you is always the best choice, regardless of the specs.

This type of testing methodology belongs in the Dark Ages. To celebrate it, you are effectively sticking two fingers up at all those people who have used the scientific method to your advantage. Used the shower recently? Had a drink of water? That would not be possible without water chlorination. How do we know chlorine is a safe bactericide to use? No doubt through statistical research. The video monitor you are looking at now is the result of thousands of hours of research and development by scientists and engineers, drawing on the wealth of knowledge of the many years of work by scientists long since dead. These are all testiments to the scientific method and I'll be damned if hi-fi and human hearing is viewed as an exception to this.

[tbewick]

Sounds like a great business idea. You could build a staff of engineers and doctors. Have people come in and submit to a hearing test with the doctors and then have the engineers build a system that compenstates for their particular hearing capabilities and/or deficiencies.

Of course the people that buy such a system better be reclusive loners because if they ever have company over for dinner, their guests sure won't appreciate the system because their hearing is different.

It's odd you said that. I did hear a while back that some headphones were being developed which would be custom made to your ears. It sounded quite interesting.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

It's odd you said that. I did hear a while back that some headphones were being developed which would be custom made to your ears. It sounded quite interesting.

I think they meant the headphones would be custom fit for your ears. (Them hearing-aid companies gotta pay employee's too).

[shokhead]

Right or wrong,there's a lot of people out there that only buy by specs. I know quite a few on the bike forums that would never think of test riding a 3K bike before they buy it because they did there homework on specs. Just as many an HT person that wont even turn on a receiver,listen to a speaker or open the drawer on a player before they buy. Right or wrong? Me,i do both,spec it out and then listen and play.

[tbewick]

I think they meant the headphones would be custom fit for your ears. (Them hearing-aid companies gotta pay employee's too).

It was something to do with designing headphones that could reproduce a surround effect. This is affected by the shape of your ears. I can't remember much about the details but it did require measurements to be made of the ear lobes.

Right or wrong,there's a lot of people out there that only buy by specs. I know quite a few on the bike forums that would never think of test riding a 3K bike before they buy it because they did there homework on specs. Just as many an HT person that wont even turn on a receiver,listen to a speaker or open the drawer on a player before they buy. Right or wrong? Me,i do both,spec it out and then listen and play.

That's what I do. With loudspeakers there is usually a considerable difference between units and subjective observations can be supported by measuring physical test data, like a speaker's impulse response. I have heard several CD players in my time and none has ever sounded considerably different from the other. I admit that I have never heard one of the more costly units. The idea however that you have to survey every unit rather than basing your purchase using your sense of reason is ridiculous. I don't accept that my ignorance of the 'brilliance' of more expensive units is limiting the performance of my hi-fi. Indeed the transparency of the Compact Disc medium is reflected in double-blind test results which have included more expensive units. I haven't reviewed these tests myself but if you're interested mtrycrafts would probably be able to help you out here. There are no test data I am aware of that shows off the distortions that a well-designed CD player introduces which would give rise to the supposed variation in sound quality between units.

One other thing that seems to be mentioned quite frequently - the power supply. Unless I am being grossly ignorant, the specifications do need to be measured with the CD player or digital receiver turned on.

[markw]

I think it depends on the unit in question. I'm using a Toshiba 2805 in my HT system and it does a fine job with CDs by using it's analog outputs.

Now, about a year and a half ago, needing a DVD player for the beauteous Mrs. W's workouts, I picked up a Toshiba DVD/VHS player for the man-cave/gym/study/office for that purpose. I should mention that the heart and soul of the man-cave is a two channel Marantz 2270, no HT system there. The Tosh combo worked great as a CD player and VHS machine. Great sound when appropriate. Even movies in two channel sound stunning. I figured this would also serve dual (triple) duty as a CD player as well so I could reclaim my lil' walk-man that had been serving that purpose.

Essentially, it did. But, as time went on I noticed subtle, niggling little things about the CD sound that just didn't sound quite right. A little (very little) harshness on some material. ...and only on CD, not the radio. Emmy Lou Harris comers to mind, and other little disquieting feelings on some other recordings but this was the most glaring one. Now, being aware of these things, I took that same CD up to the HT system and listened very, very carefully at the offending passages. No problem. I repeated this with the main stereo system (NAD 523 CD player) and again, no problem.

during this time I replaced the Sound Dynamics RTS-3 speakers with JBL L-26s and the problem still remained.

I replaced that lil' walk-man and, yep, no problem.

Granted, most people would not notice these little things much less be bothered with them but I'm a little more picky. So, I just picked up a refurb Marantz CC4300 for the man-cave and all is right with the world.

So, again, I don't think you can generalize. I think it depends on the individual player. And, yes, I was both surprised and disappointed to learn this.

[tbewick]

I think Dan Driscoll said something about vinyls sounding better than CD's. I like vinyl myself, but it is an inescapable fact that vinyl warmth is, more than anything else, a product of analogue distortion and noise. I thought it would be fair to present a small comparison of the LP and CD formats. Please note that the point raised about SACD's improved sound because of replay of frequencies above 20 kHz has been disputed on this forum in the past. I included this quote because even Sony admit that vinyl warmth is a colouration and is not accurate sound reproduction.

Ref: Digital Audio Technology, fourth edition, Edited by J. Maes and M. Vercammen, Focal Press 2001. p 24, p 107-108.

Mtrycrafts gave these references on an earlier thread which I feel are also relevant to this discussion:

Masters, Ian G 'Do All CD Players Sound the Same?' Stereo review, Jan 1986, pg 50-57.

Pholmann, Ken C. '6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?' Stereo Review, Dec 1988, pg 76-84.

Phollmann, Ken C. 'The New CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?' Stereo Review, Oct 1990, pg 60-67.

CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 75, Jun/Jul 1999.

CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 74, Apr/May 1999.

Benjamin, Eric and Gannon, Benjamin ' Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality,' 105th AES Convention, 1998, Print 4826.

[mak99]

Hey there everyone. I just had a quick question. Currently, I'm using my DVD player as my primary CD player. Is this "ok" to do? Am I getting the proper sound out of my CD's? To me, it seems logical to use a device with digital outs to play a digital format. Any thoughts on this? Sorry if this has been covered before.

If not "ok", do you recommend my purchasing a CD player with digital outs? or should I just purchase a plain-jane cd player?

It's interesting to see how off-topic this thread became! I'm just here to throw up a few posts and express my opinion - which is just that. If you don't agree, you have every right to. But don't trash me if you don't agree...

To answer the original question - YES, it is okay to use a DVD player as your CD player. It's designed for that purpose, so why not?! But this is where fact stops and opinions start...

I personally have a dedicated CD/transport system for my CDs, used with my dedicated 2-channel system. My current setup is primarily Rega (includinga P3 'table) as I perfer the somewhat laid-back sound of British electronics. My Planet/Io combination has served me well for many years. It's getting a rest right now as I recently bought a Yamaha DVD-S2300 for DVD-A and SACD capabilties. I'm running the 2300 thru the Io to compare sound via the 2300 analog outs and the digital out. So far the digital out thru the Io DAC has the advantage.

Is this the right combo for everybody? Hardly. It's just what I prefer right now, and my needs may change in the future. But you need to use whatever you're happy with. And if you use your DVD player as your CD player too, you'll spend way less money than some of us - and that's probably not a bad thing!

- Happy listening!

[PENG]

Hey there everyone. I just had a quick question. Currently, I'm using my DVD player as my primary CD player. Is this "ok" to do? Am I getting the proper sound out of my CD's? To me, it seems logical to use a device with digital outs to play a digital format. Thanks for any advice in advance.

The answer to your 2nd question is, most likely it would sound fine playing CD's. I have 4 DVD players, 1 universal, and 1 CD player that weighs 28 lbs and has 7 power supplies in it. They all sound similar enough that in a simple level matched blind listening test, I would not be able to tell them apart. That is, with one exception. One of the DVD player that I paid C$115 for about a year ago, could not play any CD right. It is not like the distortion is high or not transparent, but the sound would be so thin and lacking in bass that I am sure anyone could hear the difference and pick it out from the others in any DBT. This is the case regardless of whether I used the anolog, optical, or digital coax outputs. Yet this player has no problem playing DVD material as good as the others.

I paid C$49 at Wall Mart for my last DVD player a few months ago. To my surprise, and regardless of its below average specs, this cheap player plays CD's just as good as my 28 lbs CD player or my 3910 universal.

[Tempest]

I have a Sony ES Changer as a separate player for the following reasons. I wanted a good quality carousel so I could put in entire sets of CD’s (multi-CD opera and jazz sets). I also like leaving DVD’s in ‘stases’. Removing them from the DVD player will result in loosing that pause point. I hope that makes sense…it’s an early morning for me.

I admit this is all based on laziness, but it is rather nice to have the separate player. I do hear a difference between my Denon 1920 DVD player and the Sony changer (using analog connections and their DACs), but it is nothing ground breaking. The biggest difference in technical performance is that a dedicated CD player loads quicker and the fast-forward and reverse functions are much more responsive.

Do I have to have a dedicated CD player? No! Is it nice to have? Yes!

[Pyrrho]

Why should the buyer care about bias? It is their own bias, what's wrong with buying what suits their own own preferences, as long as it sounds good to them? If someone has poor high frequency sensitivity a bright speaker may sound good to them, but be a bad choice for someone else. Are you suggesting that person not buy equipment that sounds good to them, just because it doesn't have the best specs? Or was I right in my previous post, do you really buy audio gear based solely on specs?

The "bias" that he is on about is not personal preference, but a factor that often causes errors in judgment. When, for example, golden ear audiophiles are in a listening session, and the person doing the test claims to change something that the golden ears imagine really matters, but does not actually change anything, they still very often swear they hear the difference!

And as I stated above:

As for sound quality, for you to accurately test that, you would need to level match the different players in order to have a meaningful test. Otherwise, because human hearing is not linear, if one is very slightly louder than the other, it will subjectively be heard as having more bass and more treble, and will often be described as being "fuller", "clearer", "more detailed" (of course one can hear more details if it is a bit louder!), etc., but often will not be noticed as being louder. This aspect of human hearing is why old stereo receivers typically had a "Loudness Compensation" switch that boosted the bass, and usually the treble as well. You can hear the effect for yourself simply by playing with the volume control when playing music that has plenty of bass. As the volume decreases, the bass appears to diminish faster than the midrange, which is simply the result of human hearing being nonlinear (hearing midrange has greater survival value than hearing frequency extremes). Most audiophiles do not bother to level match equipment, and therefore their listening tests are meaningless because the difference perceived, even if real, may simply be a slight difference in volume. Assuming that your equipment is not malfunctioning and operating in accordance with its specifications, it is doubtful if you would ever hear a difference between your current DVD player and other players with typical recordings if the players were properly level matched. (http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=157044&postcount=4)

Now, do you want to spend your money for something that makes no difference, or do you only want to spend you money on things that really matter?

[mtrycrafts]

what's wrong with buying what suits their own own preferences, as long as it sounds good to them?

NOTHING is wrong.
But, what does matter is when testable claims are made, such as audible differences. Then, stand by for a challenge and requests for evidence.
Singular reality is useless to others.

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE=Dan Driscoll] Tell me, why do you even bother to demo equipment? Just set a budget, decide what features you want and then buy the component with the best specs that matches. No need to actually listen to it before you buy, according to what you're saying, the specs tell you everything you need to know.

Yep, other than speakers, sounds great to me. History would support this line of purchasing.

David Rich and Peter Aczel, 'Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that Modern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent,' 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #4053.

I use to be a spec-head myself, until I found that some gear sounded better even though it had "inferior" specs. Now I use them as a guide, but I buy what sounds best to me, even if it doesn't have specs as good as another piece.

Well, we do make irrational choices, from time to time. No one is exempt.

[rollinrocker]

[QUOTE=mtrycrafts][QUOTE=Dan Driscoll] Tell me, why do you even bother to demo equipment? Just set a budget, decide what features you want and then buy the component with the best specs that matches. No need to actually listen to it before you buy, according to what you're saying, the specs tell you everything you need to know.

Yep, other than speakers, sounds great to me. History would support this line of purchasing.

What history is this? Thirty-four years ago i rec'd a panasonic stereo for x-mas. When i played records on it i was in heaven! I could not imagine anything sounding better. Three years later i bought a pioneer receiver (i used the same speakers) and music sounded better yet. I had found nirvana! In 1977 a buddy and i went to a newly opened store, the "audio warehouse". My eyes (and ears) were opened! I didn't realize music could sound this way! I took out my first loan and purchased an onkyo integrated amp and tuner. Separates in 1977!! I hooked these up to my micro acoustic speakers (which i bought about a year and a half prior) and cranked it up! Now we're talkin'. I was so happy. This was the system i was going to live with the rest of my life! I added a rotel turntable, a pioneer reel to reel, a teac tape deck and a spectra-accoustics graphic equalizer. Bose 601 series III speakers were added two years later ( i know, but these speakers rocked). If hef had a better sounding rig at the mansion, i'd have to be convinced! By now you know what happened next. A friend and i took a trip to cinci to shop for a tape deck (for him). The salesman demo'd on a NAD system. A month later i took out my third loan ( i bought a jeep in there somewhere) and took home a NAD amp, pre-amp and tuner. I set everything up. I was pleased. The backround was blacker (quieter), the sound was smoother ( not as hard) and the amp made the bass tighter, more dynamic, the woofers had more "snap". I WAS an audioholic. All this happened by 1985. In the last 21 years i've made many more upgrades, not all have had a positive result, and some didn't seem to make a diff at all. If i lived in a bubble i would have probably been happy with that panasonic system from years ago. But i read. I go out and LISTEN. There IS better sounding equipment out there. History proves it.

[shokhead]

[QUOTE=mtrycrafts][QUOTE=Dan Driscoll] Tell me, why do you even bother to demo equipment? Just set a budget, decide what features you want and then buy the component with the best specs that matches. No need to actually listen to it before you buy, according to what you're saying, the specs tell you everything you need to know.

Yep, other than speakers, sounds great to me. History would support this line of purchasing.

What history is this? Thirty-four years ago i rec'd a panasonic stereo for x-mas. When i played records on it i was in heaven! I could not imagine anything sounding better. Three years later i bought a pioneer receiver (i used the same speakers) and music sounded better yet. I had found nirvana! In 1977 a buddy and i went to a newly opened store, the "audio warehouse". My eyes (and ears) were opened! I didn't realize music could sound this way! I took out my first loan and purchased an onkyo integrated amp and tuner. Separates in 1977!! I hooked these up to my micro acoustic speakers (which i bought about a year and a half prior) and cranked it up! Now we're talkin'. I was so happy. This was the system i was going to live with the rest of my life! I added a rotel turntable, a pioneer reel to reel, a teac tape deck and a spectra-accoustics graphic equalizer. Bose 601 series III speakers were added two years later ( i know, but these speakers rocked). If hef had a better sounding rig at the mansion, i'd have to be convinced! By now you know what happened next. A friend and i took a trip to cinci to shop for a tape deck (for him). The salesman demo'd on a NAD system. A month later i took out my third loan ( i bought a jeep in there somewhere) and took home a NAD amp, pre-amp and tuner. I set everything up. I was pleased. The backround was blacker (quieter), the sound was smoother ( not as hard) and the amp made the bass tighter, more dynamic, the woofers had more "snap". I WAS an audioholic. All this happened by 1985. In the last 21 years i've made many more upgrades, not all have had a positive result, and some didn't seem to make a diff at all. If i lived in a bubble i would have probably been happy with that panasonic system from years ago. But i read. I go out and LISTEN. There IS better sounding equipment out there. History proves it.

Of course there's better sounding equipment out there,my dog hears it sometimes.

[WmAx]

Yep, other than speakers, sounds great to me. History would support this line of purchasing.

Factory specs are not reliable, except from a select few companies whom have demonstrated such behaviour. Typically, most modern hi-fi equipment at least behaves within a minimum acceptable parameter envelope as to remain linear/transparent for the most part, but 3rd party measurements[correlated with perceptual research papers on the specific measured parameters] or a valid DBT are needed if one wants to be sure.

Practically, you are correct that speaker specs can not give someone a good idea of how a speaker will sound under normal conditions in a normal room. Technically, speaker specs would be enough to get an excellent idea of how a speaker will sound, if the proper set of measurements were provided under standardized control conditions. Of course, one could hardly expect many people to interpret this data properly even if it were published. In addition, one must also understand how the room acoustics interact with the measured performance of the speaker system.

-Chris

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE=rollinrocker][QUOTE=mtrycrafts][b]

Of course there's better sounding equipment out there,my dog hears it sometimes.


Sounds like I need to get a dog and take it with me shopping next time:D

[BostonMark]

were all you guys saying? I was in the other room listening to my new Meridian 506.24 CD player. I love its DACS and use the analog outs to my receiver, which I have set on processor direct, so it sends the Meridian's signal cleanly to my Rotel 200 watt/ch stereo power amplifier, and then to my Polk Audio Monitor 70s. Wow, you really can hear the difference in a truly high end CD player.

[WmAx]

Wow, you really can hear the difference in a truly high end CD player.

If you can *really hear a difference, then it will probably be because the CD player is purposely modifying the frequency response or inducing huge levels of distortion(s). This is not unheard of in so-called hi-end equipment.

-Chris

*To ascertain actual audibility, a controlled double blinded test with level matching within 0.1 dB is required in order to prevent psychological and physiological biases from affecting the evaluation.

[westcott]

were all you guys saying? I was in the other room listening to my new Meridian 506.24 CD player. I love its DACS and use the analog outs to my receiver, which I have set on processor direct, so it sends the Meridian's signal cleanly to my Rotel 200 watt/ch stereo power amplifier, and then to my Polk Audio Monitor 70s. Wow, you really can hear the difference in a truly high end CD player.

Everyone has their priorities but I would never spend more on a CD transport than my entire speaker system is worth?

[shokhead]

were all you guys saying? I was in the other room listening to my new Meridian 506.24 CD player. I love its DACS and use the analog outs to my receiver, which I have set on processor direct, so it sends the Meridian's signal cleanly to my Rotel 200 watt/ch stereo power amplifier, and then to my Polk Audio Monitor 70s. Wow, you really can hear the difference in a truly high end CD player.

Well ok then,we are glad your happy abit a little lighter in the wallet. I close my eyes and play my cd's on my DVD player and dream its a cd player. I'm happy also.

[mtrycrafts]

Wow, you really can hear the difference in a truly high end CD player.


Not the first such claim:D It usually falls apart when you have to use only your ears to compare; that is trusting your ears, not when you use your eyes to confuse the issues.

The Sensible Sound, # 74, Apr/May 1999.

I wonder if one of those $1000+ CD player was a Meridian and no audible difference.
Or
this one with a Meridian:

http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_mldenon.htm

If it is in Spanish, use the google translator.

[BostonMark]

Everyone has their priorities but I would never spend more on a CD transport than my entire speaker system is worth?


The Meridian is out on loan to me from a local hi fi store, but if I do decide to buy it, its used, and its $649.00, not $2,200.00. Frankly if it was new, its out of my budget for hi fi stuff at the moment.

However to take a moment comparing high end things to low end, why wouldn't a better CD player sound better? At some point the Digital Analog converter must convert the signal from the CD to the speakers. Either the CD player does that or the receiver. Plenty has been written on this forum why better electronics in receivers and amplifiers make one receiver sound better or worse than another, so why would it be different for the electronics in a CD player? Why wouldn't better electronics in the CD player make the overall sound better, when its been argued many times over that the electronics in almost every other part of your system does, ie DVD players (black levels, PLUGE, artifacting, etc, yet we all know all the DVD player is, is a machine that plays the DIGITAL information on a Disc); receivers, amplifiers, you get the idea.

While I agree that if I paid the full list price of the Meridian, I don't hear three times better sound than my DVD player (a pioneer elite 47A), it does have an incredible sound. While I didn't notice any difference between blind AB tests with a Rotel RCD 975 I do hear a difference with the Meridian. To perform the test, I used two albums that I had two CDs of , Donald Fagans Morph the Cat (got the CD, then found out it was available in CD/DVD-audio) and Diana Krall - The Girl in the Other Room (same deal, first bought CD). I placed them both into the DVD player and the Meridian at the same time and hit play. With the settings for each the same (yamaha set to processor direct, no effects) I had my girlfriend select one, then the other etc. with me not knowing whether she hit the CD button or the DVD button. With the Rotel tests (a $750.00 CD player) I couldn't tell the difference between the DACs in the Rotel and my Reciever (the DVD player in both tests was set to digital out, while the Rotel and the Meridian were played using analog out, since their selling points are high quality dacs). However, I could hear a difference between the Meridian and my receiver. Was it a $2200 dollar difference? Probably not, but I'm pretty sure that I will end up buying it, I'm amazed with it.

I would also note that the Meridian 506 is one solid machine. It weighs a lot, and the transport actually contains the laser, so that its always in the same spot. It also has a feature I like, even though its a minor one. The transport features a rubber center, so that when you put the CD in the machine it is always exactly where it should go. Not often, but every once in a while, I drop a dvd in my dvd player, and the door won't shut, because I didn't place it in the tray quite right.

As a final note of irony, I never would have even thought of buying stuff like Rotel Power Amps and Meridian CD players if I hadn't started reading this Darn AudioHolics Forum last Year!!!! (which includes rave reviews on not only the rotel amps and the meridian, but also the Rotel CD player that I couldn't really hear a difference on). Sooo, if any of you have actually done the said AB tests on any of these high end units, why don't you write a review of said machine in the consumer review section!!???

[shokhead]

DVD or CD player through the digital connection isnt doing much of anything with the signal, its the receiver thats doing everything. Player hands it to the receiver and THEN its converted,mixed,changed and whatever else the receiver is going to do.

[BostonMark]

Not the first such claim:D It usually falls apart when you have to use only your ears to compare; that is trusting your ears, not when you use your eyes to confuse the issues.

The Sensible Sound, # 74, Apr/May 1999.

I wonder if one of those $1000+ CD player was a Meridian and no audible difference.
Or
this one with a Meridian:

http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_mldenon.htm

If it is in Spanish, use the google translator.


First, what a cool link that translator is, I did read the article. I can't afford equipment to equalize the output between my own AB test, I suspect that would cost more than my whole system. What exactly does the ABX killer 1 equalization comparison system do anyway? (the piece of electronics they used in the comparison tests to do the AB switching)

If this article is true, my question is, "why are we all here?" If a simple system costing thousands and thousands less than the high end system sounds the same, why have we all wasted so much time and effort with so many posts on this site? Why don't we all just buy a basic Denon Receiver (no offense to denon, I have one, and like it) plug in our discman, and listen and be happy? It would appear from this article that the only thing to argue about as far as sound Quality goes (as opposed to features which vary from unit to unit) is speakers.

[shokhead]

Bells and whistles,inputs and outputs,most use the DVD player for cd's also and so there the differences are greater, video quality,difference audio formats and durability.

[Geno]

After reading through the many pages of this thread, I'm impressed with the breadth of experience in this group of Audioholics. My own more humble experiences with different CD/DVD players hasn't revealed any startling differences in sound quality, except for the Hi-Rez formats. I'm amazed that anyone would spend 15 - 20 thousand on a CD player, but it's their money. Since my "critical" listening is done on my Denon universal player, I still wanted a dedicated CD player for background listening, so got my present CD megachanger. The major difference, to me, is the features that a CD player has over a DVD or universal player. CD players are the only type of disc player that will do true "shuffle" play. Also, my changer has a "favorites" feature that let me program playlists of discs as well as favorite tracks. That is the one feature that made me want a CD changer.
Of course, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong

[mtrycrafts]

The major difference, to me, is the features that a CD player has over a DVD or universal player. CD players are the only type of disc player that will do true "shuffle" play. Also, my changer has a "favorites" feature that let me program playlists of discs as well as favorite tracks. That is the one feature that made me want a CD changer.
Of course, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong


These are very important reasons to get a mega changer. And, since there is nothing wrong with them, it is a great choice, plus, the storage of Cds has just dropped significantly:D

[shokhead]

These are very important reasons to get a mega changer. And, since there is nothing wrong with them, it is a great choice, plus, the storage of Cds has just dropped significantly:D

I'd have a problem with a mega player because i use them in my car and change them once a week and pulling out of the storage might be more trouble then it would be worth?

[westcott]

The Meridian is out on loan to me from a local hi fi store, but if I do decide to buy it, its used, and its $649.00, not $2,200.00. Frankly if it was new, its out of my budget for hi fi stuff at the moment.

However to take a moment comparing high end things to low end, why wouldn't a better CD player sound better? At some point the Digital Analog converter must convert the signal from the CD to the speakers. Either the CD player does that or the receiver. Plenty has been written on this forum why better electronics in receivers and amplifiers make one receiver sound better or worse than another, so why would it be different for the electronics in a CD player? Why wouldn't better electronics in the CD player make the overall sound better, when its been argued many times over that the electronics in almost every other part of your system does, ie DVD players (black levels, PLUGE, artifacting, etc, yet we all know all the DVD player is, is a machine that plays the DIGITAL information on a Disc); receivers, amplifiers, you get the idea.

While I agree that if I paid the full list price of the Meridian, I don't hear three times better sound than my DVD player (a pioneer elite 47A), it does have an incredible sound. While I didn't notice any difference between blind AB tests with a Rotel RCD 975 I do hear a difference with the Meridian. To perform the test, I used two albums that I had two CDs of , Donald Fagans Morph the Cat (got the CD, then found out it was available in CD/DVD-audio) and Diana Krall - The Girl in the Other Room (same deal, first bought CD). I placed them both into the DVD player and the Meridian at the same time and hit play. With the settings for each the same (yamaha set to processor direct, no effects) I had my girlfriend select one, then the other etc. with me not knowing whether she hit the CD button or the DVD button. With the Rotel tests (a $750.00 CD player) I couldn't tell the difference between the DACs in the Rotel and my Reciever (the DVD player in both tests was set to digital out, while the Rotel and the Meridian were played using analog out, since their selling points are high quality dacs). However, I could hear a difference between the Meridian and my receiver. Was it a $2200 dollar difference? Probably not, but I'm pretty sure that I will end up buying it, I'm amazed with it.

I would also note that the Meridian 506 is one solid machine. It weighs a lot, and the transport actually contains the laser, so that its always in the same spot. It also has a feature I like, even though its a minor one. The transport features a rubber center, so that when you put the CD in the machine it is always exactly where it should go. Not often, but every once in a while, I drop a dvd in my dvd player, and the door won't shut, because I didn't place it in the tray quite right.

As a final note of irony, I never would have even thought of buying stuff like Rotel Power Amps and Meridian CD players if I hadn't started reading this Darn AudioHolics Forum last Year!!!! (which includes rave reviews on not only the rotel amps and the meridian, but also the Rotel CD player that I couldn't really hear a difference on). Sooo, if any of you have actually done the said AB tests on any of these high end units, why don't you write a review of said machine in the consumer review section!!???

Digital signal transmission is pretty much controlled by standards set for digtial signal transmission. It either follows the protocols or not. I do not understand why it is so difficult to understand that your PC CD player is just as capable of reading and writing a PERFECT copy of any audio disc it is requested to copy or read. It is a simple digital transfer. PCs have transfered billions of bytes, every day, for decades, without errors using $10 CD players and since the majority of us use digital equipment for surround sound, the cd player is simply a transport of digital data. There is no better or worse digital transfer and since most of us are using digital receivers to translate our music to Dolby Pro Logic or Dolby Digital, it is not necessary to invest in quality DACs in a transport, our receiver is doing all the digital processing of the digital signal sent by the transport. A quality DAC in a CD player is not necessary if you are using your CD or DVD player for digital processing by the receiver.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, analog is a whole different story and is very subjective. If it sounds better to you in analog, then that is a personal preference shared by a lot of people, but in the scheme of things, a VERY small percentage of the population. Since this article is under Home Theater, it was assumed by many that we were talking about multi channel digital sound and not analog, two channel music listening.

[BostonMark]

Digital signal transmission is pretty much controlled by standards set for digtial signal transmission. It either follows the protocols or not. I do not understand why it is so difficult to understand that your PC CD player is just as capable of reading and writing a PERFECT copy of any audio disc it is requested to copy or read. It is a simple digital transfer. PCs have transfered billions of bytes, every day, for decades, without errors using $10 CD players and since the majority of us use digital equipment for surround sound, the cd player is simply a transport of digital data. There is no better or worse digital transfer and since most of us are using digital receivers to translate our music to Dolby Pro Logic or Dolby Digital, it is not necessary to invest in quality DACs in a transport, our receiver is doing all the digital processing of the digital signal sent by the transport. A quality DAC in a CD player is not necessary if you are using your CD or DVD player for digital processing by the receiver.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, analog is a whole different story and is very subjective. If it sounds better to you in analog, then that is a personal preference shared by a lot of people, but in the scheme of things, a VERY small percentage of the population. Since this article is under Home Theater, it was assumed by many that we were talking about multi channel digital sound and not analog, two channel music listening.

Of course a computer reads and writes CDs with perfection, its Digital to Digital. Ones and zeroes. However, when you send that digital signal to a speaker so that you can LISTEN to it, the digital information MUST BE CONVERTED BACK INTO ANALOG. Why do you think your speakers are hooked to your stereo with wires, instead of fiber optic cables or digital coaxial cables? Your speakers receive an ANALOG SIGNAL. At some point your DIGITAL source is converted by a DAC back into analog. (A DAC is a digital to analog converter). When you hook up your CD player or DVD player to your receiver with Digital inputs your RECEIVER uses its DACS to convert that digital signal to analog for your speakers to play it. That your receiver may do some additional DIGITAL modification (ie dolby digital and DTS which are two COMPRESSION formats, or Dolby Pro Logic) has no bearing on the fact that the signal is converted into an analog signal before it goes to your speakers. Converting Digital to Analog is NOT the same as reading and writing a stream of 1s and 0s as you point out may be done flawlessly by most PCs. It is in the conversion of the digital signal to the original analog signal that high end DACS sound better. If you get a high end CD player, the digital to analog conversion will be done by the CD players DACS and may well sound better than sending the digital signal to the receiver, which still has to convert that digital signal to an analog speaker. If the Digital to analog converters in a high end CD player are better than the ones in a Receiver, the resulting sound will be better when you use the CDs analog outputs (and let the CD do the digital analog conversion, instead of the receiver) Why do you think some RECEIVERS sound better than others? At some point, the sound waves your ears register music from have been converted by your stereo system back into ANALOG, whether you listen to a high end CD player with outstanding DACS, or a DVD player with a DTS movie, played by your receiver in 7.1 channels. Your EARS do not hear ones and zeroes, they hear sound waves of different frequencies and amplitudes.

I would also briefly point out that two hi fidelity sources, DVD Audio and SACD both primarily use analog outputs and are NOT processed by the Receiver (except in some very high end matching units that use proprietary digital interfaces, but again, before the signal goes to the speakers it is converted to analog)

So, although you are correct in saying that if you hook up a CD player via digital outputs no there will be no difference. (DVD players do show differences, digital signals or not, ie ghosting, artifacts, chroma bug etc. in different models), I believe that you are mistaken or misinformed about your statements about analog. Ultimately we ALL listen to Analog. DIGITAL is a means to bring us the original analog signal as closely as possible. However, most sounds in MUSIC and MOVIES are orignally analog (human voices, piano keys, saxaphones, guitar strings, drums, etc) converted to Digital, and then SOMEWHERE in the chain of your stereo or Surround Sound System, converted BACK TO ANALOG!

[Nick250]

What am I missing here. Based on the last two posts you guys seem to be argueing the same side of the issue ie digital is digital and ones and zeros are ones and zeros and thats that. At some point the ones and zeros need to be converted to an analog signal to send to the speaker and and a DAC does this. Some DACs sound different than others and it is personal prefference on which DACs sound better. Is not this what you both are saying? Or am I missing something because it's late and I am tired.

Nick

[BostonMark]

Nick, - Nope, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

and to answer the central question of the post!, if you are happy with the sound of your receiver, and you use all digital inputs into your receiver, you DON'T need a CD player, playing CDs in your DVD player is just fine, because your Receiver is doing all the digital to analog conversion. Use the extra money to pick up some more CDs and DVDs.

Another idea for convenience, instead of a CD jukebox, connect your computer to your home theater system, and rip all your CDs onto the harddrive into either wavs or mp3s (at a bitrate that you cannot hear the difference between the original CD and the Mp3.) That way, you can listen to and play all your music at the touch of a button with any number of music organization programs readily available online.

[westcott]

Nick, - Nope, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

and to answer the central question of the post!, if you are happy with the sound of your receiver, and you use all digital inputs into your receiver, you DON'T need a CD player, playing CDs in your DVD player is just fine, because your Receiver is doing all the digital to analog conversion. Use the extra money to pick up some more CDs and DVDs.

Another idea for convenience, instead of a CD jukebox, connect your computer to your home theater system, and rip all your CDs onto the harddrive into either wavs or mp3s (at a bitrate that you cannot hear the difference between the original CD and the Mp3.) That way, you can listen to and play all your music at the touch of a button with any number of music organization programs readily available online.

You got the idea BostonMark,

Spend your hard earned money on a good receiver with a quality DAC and forget all the marketing hype used to sell expensive CD players.

[Nick250]

Nick, - Nope, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.


I feel better already :) By the way Mark I live in Waltham. We are practially neighbors if your screen name refers to where you live.

[BostonMark]

Nick, actually, I live in Whitman, (40 minutes south of Boston) but Whitman Mark just didn't have the same cache. You live near Natural Sounds, the hi end shop I was referring to! It is in Framingham right on Route 9.

Wesscott, I guess after arguing, we actually agree. Somewhere in the chain, it does pay to have a great quality Digital to Analog converter. I picked up the Meridian, because it was a fraction of it's original list price, it's built like a tank, and it really does have a great DAC, I like it much better than the one in my Yamaha 5280 Receiver. Im in no hurry to get rid of that though, it has multiple digital inputs, 6 channel input for DVD-Audio, 2 component inputs, preouts for adding separate amplification (which I did for the front two channels) and a pretty nice sound. For casual listening, I have my Compaq 120 gig compter hooked into the system via soundblaster card with optical digital out, and I use Music Match program to select music. I have about 700 CDs ripped onto the hard drive so far.