Using DVD Player as CD Player

[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]

Well, to throw a little gasoline on the fire...

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]

real reasons

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.

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]

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]

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]

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