separate players for audio & video?

[supervij]

Somebody on a different website suggested that this is a far better thing to do: he has one player for CDs, DVD-As, and SACDs; he has another player for DVDs and DVD-As. Whereas I love the idea of one player that can handle any disc. So which would be the better option?

To me, the separate players make sense, in that in some (most?) universal players, the video quality suffers while the audio quality is quite high, or vice versa. And if one broke down, at least you have the other player, which can be nice. For me personally, I would consider getting one machine for CDs, DVD-As, and SACDs, and another machine for DVD playback and recording.

But one player means just one machine. Less wires going back and forth. Less complications. Just slide the disc in, and both the player and the receiver will figure out what to do on its own.

I'm curious; anyone have any opinions on this?

cheers,
supervij

 

[mtrycrafts]

Somebody on a different website suggested that this is a far better thing to do: he has one player for CDs, DVD-As, and SACDs; he has another player for DVDs and DVD-As. Whereas I love the idea of one player that can handle any disc. So which would be the better option?

To me, the separate players make sense, in that in some (most?) universal players, the video quality suffers while the audio quality is quite high, or vice versa. And if one broke down, at least you have the other player, which can be nice. For me personally, I would consider getting one machine for CDs, DVD-As, and SACDs, and another machine for DVD playback and recording.

But one player means just one machine. Less wires going back and forth. Less complications. Just slide the disc in, and both the player and the receiver will figure out what to do on its own.

I'm curious; anyone have any opinions on this?

cheers,
supervij

Universal players are relatively inexpensive. If one goes bad, you get another. Most likely for less than two original players.

No, you don't need two, poor advice from that other board.

 

[supervij]

Universal players are relatively inexpensive. If one goes bad, you get another. Most likely for less than two original players.

No, you don't need two, poor advice from that other board.

Well, I'd certainly rather have just the one. Are there any universal players that also record onto a hard drive and blank DVDs? Cos for me, that would be perfect!

cheers,
supervij

 

[bumblebee]

if you are using a receiver's DAC, you'll do fine w/ a cheap universal w/ a decent transport for cd's and dvd's.

 

[RLA]

Hi
Take a good look at the Denon DVD 2910 or if its a little steep the
Yamaha DVD-C-750 a little quirky but very fine Redbook,SACD and DVD-A
performance.

 

[Leprkon]

you might consider using a single player but it may be worth running two sets of connections to the receiver.

the first is the digital set, for any movies you want to play.

the second would be an analog set, which you would run for any time you wanted to use your "pure direct" or "source direct" mode for two-channel music. most receivers only play their straight pass mode when they get an analog signal

you would just choose whatever the second input is when you planned to use the direct mode.

 

[Sleestack]

I don't run a separate CD player in my main system, but when I'm playing music using my Denon 3910, I run the digital signal through and external DAC and tube buffer before running analog L/R into my B&K. It allows me to have a strong DVD player, but also lets me run soemthing a bit more focused for my 2 channel music. I'm not sure if it is the external DAC or the tube buffer, but, they have really done wonders for soundstage, warmth and detail my system.

 

[bumblebee]

Sleestack, i must say both. the external DAC might be of better quality than the 3910's. and the tube buffer just makes everything sweet and full.

how i wish i had the same setup