Importance of CD player in system

[ifsixwasnin9]

What role does a CD component play in the overall sound of a system? Does the quality of CD players greatly vary? Should it be the last component you consider when putting together a system or is it equally as important as the amp, preamp, etc.?
I have a very inexpensive CD player which has been reliable and my other components are pretty good quality. Just wanted to know if I should upgrade the player for the best possible audio quality.

 

[AJinFLA]

What role does a CD component play in the overall sound of a system?

Psychologically, a huge role.
Physically (soundwaves impinging upon the ears), none.

cheers,

AJ

 

[skizzerflake]

It can make a difference, but not as much as the makers of $5000 players want you to think. The read error rate and the DA conversion can effect the final sound at your ears. If you can, act like a customer at an audio store where you can try different players through the same system and see if you can tell a difference. If you can't then you have your answer.

 

[AJinFLA]

It can make a difference, but not as much as the makers of $5000 players want you to think. The read error rate and the DA conversion can effect the final sound at your ears.

Sure it can. But does it? In any available CD player? As demonstrated scientifically using rigorous controls....where??

If you can, act like a customer at an audio store where you can try different players through the same system and see if you can tell a difference.

How would the psychological component of human "hearing" not make such an experience worthless?

If you can't then you have your answer.

Actually, unless there is a shred of actual evidence to support such a claim (none so far), he can skip that wasteful step. Or take it and decide whether the purely psychological "improvement" that he might "hear" via sighted, bias overloaded listening (to audiophile jewelry), is worth spending the extra cash, to him. For example, something that might be simply a jewelry encrusted Oppo .

cheers,

AJ

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
I have a very inexpensive CD player which has been reliable and my other components are pretty good quality. Just wanted to know if I should upgrade the player for the best possible audio quality.

If it works and has enough features and flexibility to meet your needs in those areas, no real need to upgrade. Audio quality is way over hyped by many.

 

[TLS Guy]

Unless this is for a two channel audio only system, there really is no point in purchasing a a player that can only play CDs any longer.

If a receiver or pre/pro is to do the decoding then bits are bits, and a player that suits your needs is fine.

It is well known that expensive CD players reject and will play fewer discs than more humble ones.

The late Ted Perry founder of Hyperion Records used to say, the ability of a player to play most discs is in inverse proportion to its cost!

My friends very expensive MacIntosh CD/DVD player is not disc fussy, but I identified the transport as a very inexpensive Sanyo transport.

There is one caveat, if the is for audio only and to be used via the analog outs, then the analog circuits after the DAC must be of an adequate standard.

 

[3db]

Unless this is for a two channel audio only system, there really is no point in purchasing a a player that can only play CDs any longer.

If a receiver or pre/pro is to do the decoding then bits are bits, and a player that suits your needs is fine.

It is well known that expensive CD players reject and will play fewer discs than more humble ones.

The late Ted Perry founder of Hyperion Records used to say, the ability of a player to play most discs is in inverse proportion to its cost!

My friends very expensive MacIntosh CD/DVD player is not disc fussy, but I identified the transport as a very inexpensive Sanyo transport.

There is one caveat, if the is for audio only and to be used via the analog outs, then the analog circuits after the DAC must be of an adequate standard.

Summing up what you just said....once the signal is in the analog domain, thats when you may experience differences among CD players? Stretching that thought out a little moe, since most DVD/BLu Ray players ar used mainly in teh digital domain, their analog side may not have the inherent quality put into them as say a dedicated CD player?

 

[TLS Guy]

Summing up what you just said....once the signal is in the analog domain, thats when you may experience differences among CD players? Stretching that thought out a little moe, since most DVD/BLu Ray players ar used mainly in teh digital domain, their analog side may not have the inherent quality put into them as say a dedicated CD player?

Yes, but the analog side is hard to muck up. Good op amp chips are two a penny. It costs chump change to build a very good analog stage, certainly far above the performance of any known speaker and certainly a passive crossover.

I have a cheap $70 DVD player in my lower level living room and its fidelity is excellent. I'm certain you would never pick it out in a double blind test from a stand alone CD player costing thousands.

I just bet there are players out there were some clown has managed to make a poorly performing analog stage, but I suspect you might have to search hard to find one.

 

[Seth=L]

It can make a difference, but not as much as the makers of $5000 players want you to think. The read error rate and the DA conversion can effect the final sound at your ears. If you can, act like a customer at an audio store where you can try different players through the same system and see if you can tell a difference. If you can't then you have your answer.

I believe the read error rate is so minimal it has no real impact on the sound. You'd have to be talking about some pretty old DACs for there to be a noticeable change in sound. I was unable to differentiate between a Magnavox CDB560 (from 86') and Pioneer PD-65 (95') stable platter system when using analog connections. The Magnavox uses a single TDA1541 DAC (which is supposedly the foundation for Burr Brown DACs in that time) and the PD-65 used a pair of Burr Brown DACs with a very robust analog section with bunches of copper shielding. The PD-65 looked beautiful inside and out, and you would have every reason to believe a far better built and new CD player would "sound better" but I couldn't say that it does.

Also, as TLS guy noted, the glorified CD player was more finicky with playback than the cheap one. I had problems with the PD-65 reading certain CDs now and again, the CDB560 reads and plays virtually anything you put in it.

 

[ifsixwasnin9]

The signal path in CD players are usually pretty simple so they can be considered negligible in the overall system sound loop? Thanks for good information, guys! I know I picked up a new Panasonic player for $40 five years ago on Ebay and it is very reliable and I really have no qualms with it.

 

[AJinFLA]

The signal path in CD players are usually pretty simple so they can be considered negligible in the overall system sound loop?

No so much simplicity as it is mature technology. Essentially, if you use the digital output to a recent/modern receiver, it basically becomes a data transfer device (despite unsubstantiated rumors of audible jitter bogeymen lurking at every corner). However if you use the analog output of a very low cost player....

I picked up a new Panasonic player for $40 five years ago on Ebay and it is very reliable and I really have no qualms with it.

...it is conceivable that such a low cost analog section could indeed impose an audible transfer function on the signal. Could.
So use the digital out, the shortest cable required to connect, save your $$....relax and enjoy.

cheers,

AJ

 

[3db]

No so much simplicity as it is mature technology. Essentially, if you use the digital output to a recent/modern receiver, it basically becomes a data transfer device (despite unsubstantiated rumors of audible jitter bogeymen lurking at every corner). However if you use the analog output of a very low cost player....

...it is conceivable that such a low cost analog section could indeed impose an audible transfer function on the signal. Could.
So use the digital out, the shortest cable required to connect, save your $$....relax and enjoy.

cheers,

AJ

Nope, when I used my Blu-Ray plaey for CD playback, I use the analog outputs connected to my Yammaha receiver in pure direct mode to keep it as anolg as I can and to by pass the signal processing of the receiver. The sound from this setup is fantastic.

 

[j_garcia]

I haven't had a CD player in my main system for about 3-4 years now.

 

[skizzerflake]

Sure it can. But does it? In any available CD player? As demonstrated scientifically using rigorous controls....where??

How would the psychological component of human "hearing" not make such an experience worthless?

Actually, unless there is a shred of actual evidence to support such a claim (none so far), he can skip that wasteful step. Or take it and decide whether the purely psychological "improvement" that he might "hear" via sighted, bias overloaded listening (to audiophile jewelry), is worth spending the extra cash, to him. For example, something that might be simply a jewelry encrusted Oppo .

cheers,

AJ

Yikes...don't get so upset about it. Of course, science is lacking, a half ounce of earwax will destroy the benefits of a great system, etc, but this audio stuff is all about belief and magic anyway. There are more harmful things to believe in than superior CD players and if the person thinks they can hear the difference, it's better that they believe in that than some wacko religion. Worshiping at the doors of Stereophile and Absolute Sound may be silly but nobody gets harmed.

 

[Exit]

When I bought one of the first CD players (1983 I think), I bought a portable-sized non-portable CD player and it had a S/N ratio of about 90dB (which was fine for me). The better full-sized CD players at that time had S/N ratios of about 110 dB if I remember correctly. I don’t know if you could tell the difference in sound (i.e. quiet between tracks) but it is a specification that may be worth glancing at is looking to buy a CD player.

Maybe everything now has higher S/N ratios, but I think my battery-powered portable bought about 2 years ago had a 90 dB S/N ratio.

(I still use CDs because I haven’t had the time to convert about 400 CDs to a current lossless format and buy a player.)

 

[TLS Guy]

When I bought one of the first CD players (1983 I think), I bought a portable-sized non-portable CD player and it had a S/N ratio of about 90dB (which was fine for me). The better full-sized CD players at that time had S/N ratios of about 110 dB if I remember correctly. I don’t know if you could tell the difference in sound (i.e. quiet between tracks) but it is a specification that may be worth glancing at is looking to buy a CD player.

Maybe everything now has higher S/N ratios, but I think my battery-powered portable bought about 2 years ago had a 90 dB S/N ratio.

(I still use CDs because I haven’t had the time to convert about 400 CDs to a current lossless format and buy a player.)

110 db is over optimistic. The maximum usable dynamic range of a CD is 90 db.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So the take home message is that most CD players & DACs these days are all great quality and you will not hear any differences among them.

The differences you hear will come from the original source, speakers & placement, and processors (EQs, Tones, DSPs, etc.).

 

[3db]

110 db is over optimistic. The maximum usable dynamic range of a CD is 90 db.

He's stating SNR specs, not dynamic range.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Very interesting thread I stumbled upon here.

This is a topic I've always had a passionate opinion about; I have always kept a separate CD changer in my systems throughout the years, even when I turned to full-blown surround. To me, there is something that's "just right" about connecting a dedicated CD player/changer to a receiver or preamp for listening to music as opposed to playing a disc back in a primary video device (DVD/BD). That said, I agree with some of the sentiments here that suggest a dedicated player of this sort is not really needed in a home theater-only type environment, as the DVD or BD player can spin the occasional CD if need be -- but this is IF the end user does not have a dedicated CD player already.

In my case, I owned Kenwood and then Marantz CD changers, and moved from an audio-only 2-channel system to an apartment (studio sized) surround system, still keeping the Marantz CC67 changer at the time plugged into the Onkyo surround AVR, and then to yet another apartment-sized surround system with the new Onkyo 605 when I moved across country, still keeping the CC67, and then replaced the CC67 with a new CC4001 when the 67 crapped out finally. Now, in my new house, we have a separate 2-channel listening room where I moved the CC4001 and it serves as dedicated source component in that system. If I ever play a CD in my home theater room, I use my OPPO BDP-83 BD player; it does fine for the casual background music when guests are over, etc.

But my whole point here is that I feel if you're doing a two-channel dedicated audio system, a standalone CD player or changer is crucial -- if you are listening casually, and will only be spinning CDs every now and then via your HT system, the optical player for that system (DVD/BD) is fine. I always went with changers, FWIW, because I do a good deal of mixed compilation CD-R recording from different discs, and I can load five up in a changer and program the order I want them to play and then record into my TASCAM recorder; a single-disc unit never satisfied my needs, personally, even though they're normally regarded as much better built and audiophile-grade.

Was this a bit off tangent with regard to what the OP was asking? Hope not...

 

[PENG]

I just bet there are players out there were some clown has managed to make a poorly performing analog stage, but I suspect you might have to search hard to find one.

I have one DVD player like that, but just one that I know of so far.