Should I just get a better CD player?

[Bassman2]

I've got a dvd player that will play my movies just fine but if I'm looking for better SOUND quality because that's my main reason for having a stereo in the first place, would I get superior audio quality from a CD player than I would from a DVD player of equal dollar value? I'm looking at recent manufacture used Caimbridge, Rotel and similar units.

 

[jaxvon]

I've got a dvd player that will play my movies just fine but if I'm looking for better SOUND quality because that's my main reason for having a stereo in the first place, would I get superior audio quality from a CD player than I would from a DVD player of equal dollar value? I'm looking at recent manufacture used Caimbridge, Rotel and similar units.

Nope. You could convince yourself otherwise, that you can hear a difference in expensive CD players, but it's literally all in your head. If you want better sound, look at upgrading your speakers proper acoustics in your listening space.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I've got a dvd player that will play my movies just fine but if I'm looking for better SOUND quality because that's my main reason for having a stereo in the first place, would I get superior audio quality from a CD player than I would from a DVD player of equal dollar value? I'm looking at recent manufacture used Caimbridge, Rotel and similar units.

And, to add to jaxvon's input, look for better recordings that are not compressed to the hilt.

 

[MDS]

Ditto on what Jaxvon said - especially if you are using a digital connection from the dvd player to the receiver.

 

[Bassman2]

And, to add to jaxvon's input, look for better recordings that are not compressed to the hilt.

OK how does one go about doing THAT?

 

[MDS]

You won't really know how compresssed a recording is unless you get into examining the waveforms via a good audio editor. Some that are relatively compressed (read high average level) don't necessarily sound bad but over time you learn to recognize just by listening which are over the top and which are conservatively mastered.

 

[Bassman2]

You won't really know how compresssed a recording is unless you get into examining the waveforms via a good audio editor. Some that are relatively compressed (read high average level) don't necessarily sound bad but over time you learn to recognize just by listening which are over the top and which are conservatively mastered.

Well I don't think I'll be analyzing CD's anytime soon. But it's funny that I've read several articles on the superior sound of higher end CDP's AND that they decode CD's (Redbook) better than DVD units. Maybe some day I'll get to audition a few.

 

[skizzerflake]

I've got a dvd player that will play my movies just fine but if I'm looking for better SOUND quality because that's my main reason for having a stereo in the first place, would I get superior audio quality from a CD player than I would from a DVD player of equal dollar value? I'm looking at recent manufacture used Caimbridge, Rotel and similar units.

CD vs DVD player shouldn't really make any difference on reading CDs. You will definitely find better sound quality from DVD Audio or SACD units playing those respective hi-res 5 channel disks but that's a different discussion. As long as a CD player (or DVD playing CDs) is reading correctly the main difference you might find between players is the quality of the digital signal processing that renders the analog signal that you amplify. Those differences will be subtle at best (CDs are not exactly cutting edge these days so this is well known technology).

I do think, however, that there is a limit to CD quality (due to the sampling rate) and that engineers often are lazy and don't get the best from the format unless they think they are catering to an audiophile audience. If you're really interested in stereo sound, you might consider going retro with a turntable and records. I'm not an analog zealot but I do have a turntable and really love that sound for its vibrance. You can try it fairly cheaply via vintage units and Ebay. I would not recommend the cheap, plastic tables that you can get at Best Buy. It doesn't have the convenience factor of digital formats, but I have a well used turntable and lots of records; people I play it for are often of the opinion that that technology is obsolete and gone. They are surprised to hear how great it can sound, in spite of some ticks and surface noise.

 

[Nick250]

My experience CD sound quality is a hit or miss process. More misses than hits and no predicting ahead of time unless one gets a specific recommendation.

Nick

 

[Diapason]

Hmmm, if you're using a DVD player to listen to CDs via analogue phono outputs then I believe a dedicated CD player could make a worthwhile difference.

I thought this thread could do with some balance!

Si

 

[tbewick]

I do think, however, that there is a limit to CD quality (due to the sampling rate) and that engineers often are lazy and don't get the best from the format unless they think they are catering to an audiophile audience.

The sample rate of Compact Disc (44.1 kHz) is sufficient to cover the entire audible range, 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Tests have shown no audible difference between music recordings with and without frequency components above 21 kHz:

http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/labnote/lab486.html
Nishiguchi, T. et al. (2004). "Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components", NHK Laboratories Note No. 486, NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation)

Recordings done using higher sampling rates than 44.1 kHz and greater number of bits than 16 can be converted to 16 bit/44.1 kHz with very little loss in sound quality. TPDF dithered truncations to 16 bits will only result in a change in the background noise level. Sample rate conversions from higher rates to 44.1 kHz will worsen the signal-to-noise measurement because more noise will be in the audible region. With actual recordings, my feeling is that this difference will probably be fairly inconsequential.

http://ap.com/library/technotes.htm
Dunn, J. (2003). "Measurement Techniques for Digital Audio", Audio Precision Application Note #5, Audio Precision.

 

[stacker45]

I agree with diapason,you could also get a dvd player with good d/a converters and of course use the analog outputs.

 

[Bassman2]

Hmmm, if you're using a DVD player to listen to CDs via analogue phono outputs then I believe a dedicated CD player could make a worthwhile difference.

I thought this thread could do with some balance!

Si

Well so far I've been using my 7 year old Philips DVD-941 with it's digital coax output. How much does the transport and other components without the DAC have to do with audio quality anyway? The DAC's in my Yamaha RX-V659 are supposed to be very good (Burr Brown). But if I found a player with better or better sounding in my specific situation, DAC's I would of course gladly switch to analog output.

 

[no. 5]

You won't really know how compresssed a recording is unless you get into examining the waveforms via a good audio editor.

And where would one find such a program?

Preferably one near the 'free' price range.

 

[tbewick]

And where would one find such a program?

Preferably one near the 'free' price range.

I like Cool Edit 96. It's shareware but has full functionality, and has lots of toys like noise reduction, tone generator, flanger, real-time FFT etc.

http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Multimedia_and_Graphics/WAV_Players_and_Editors/Cool_Edit.html

The version I've used didn't have any spyware or a time-limit, but wasn't downloaded from this site.

 

[no. 5]

oo, thanks tbeick

 

[indcrimdefense]

from my demo experience, adding a dedicated cd player can make a substantial improvement in sound quality, depending on the following: overall quality of your system & how your hooking the cd player to your pre-amp or receiver. if your using a digital connection, there very well may be little to no difference. using an analog connection, differences in cd players can be heard. i demoed the rotel cd player 2 years ago with a rotel amp & pre-pro, & it was not a good match with the speakers i had then (klipsch rf-7). i currently have a cary dvd6, but have demoed several times both the cary dvd7 & the cary 303/300. both the dvd7 & 303 have xlr outputs which at least with the cary players was an improvement over the rca outputs. the dvd7 is a substantially better redbook cd player than my dvd6 when using the xlr outputs, however the 303 is better still, wider soundstage, better imaging, improved bass, particularly w/ a symphony, when directly compared to the dvd7 it sounded congested, or in a way unable to clearly distinquish all the information in a coherent soundstage. is this b/c the 303 is cd only & lacks video circuits, or due to other differences in the 2 machines? i don't know. the digitial xlr output of the 303 was also very good, but not of the same quality as the analog xlr output.

i also have on demo right now a 5910 (not the ci version) which appears to be an improvement over my dvd6 for redbook cd, although i have yet to do any extensive back to back listening. i would really like to demo the 5910 with the 303 & see what the differences are for redbook cd, but don't know if i will be able to get a demo 303 while i have the 5910. from memory, the 5910 appears to lack the dynamic impact of the 303 using the analog xlr output. this may be due to the 303 have a substantially higher 6.0 vrms output on the xlr connections than the 5910's output using rca connections. within the 303 itself, there is a noticeable difference switching from the rca to xlr connections, and this was true as well for the dvd7.

while i have not decided what to purchase yet, as i am frustrated that i have yet to find a one box solution (the 303 is redbook & hdcd only), the 303 was a substantial improvement when i had it in my system, perhaps an even greater improvement than adding my new cary 500 monoblocks. based on sound quality alone for cd, i would have bought the 303, but am hoping to find a universal player that is as good as the 303 for redbook. also waiting to demo the cary cd306 sacd player before i make up my mind.

i have not demoed it (yet) but depending on budget may also want to look at the mcintosh cd/sacd player, which i have heard in an all mac system with both my speakers (sig 8) & the reference 100v4 numerous times at the dealer with impressive results. when i return the 5910 i may see if we can hook it into the mac system & compare the two players.

 

[Bassman2]

Wow thanks indcrime, What I wound up doing a couple weeks ago as mentioned in other threads is I got a cheap refurb Denon DVD1930ci that is a clear step up from the old philips with CD's and the SACD's and DVD-A's are amazing. I figured for 200 bucks I couldn't go wrong and I'll just wait and see what happens with formats in the future.

The DVD's and CD's are output in digital coax and the SACD's in 5.1 analog with the option of 8.1. But for now I'm REALLY enjoying the 1930 with my Yamaha 659 and big primus 360's and little 150's that I got all for very good prices. I've gotten back into the audio enthusiast world after 25 years for under a grand and am shocked at the sound quality and power available for the price.

 

[anamorphic96]

But keep in mind that when you listen to regular CD's (red book) you are listening to the Yamaha since you are using the digital coax connection. You need to use the regular left, right analog connections to hear how the Denon sounds with red book discs.

 

[Bassman2]

But keep in mind that when you listen to regular CD's (red book) you are listening to the Yamaha since you are using the digital coax connection. You need to use the regular left, right analog connections to hear how the Denon sounds with red book discs.

Yeah I know, that's fine with me. The yammie sounds great! But I'm REALLY listening to the Denon with SACD's, all the digital stuff in the receiver is completely inoperative and bypassed with the 5.1 outs. You cant use anything, and even the tone controls don't work!

What's the story with SACD's, are they "redbook" or no?