Using DVD Player as CD Player

[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

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]

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,

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

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.


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.

 

[Dan Driscoll]

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]

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]

. 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.