High End CD Changer (Carousel) Options?

Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
Well, let's not get into the whole "level these components are at based on price" debacle right now -- I've always felt, after Anamorphic put me onto it, that the 8555 is an underpriced, overbuilt and underrated serious machine that shouldn't be discounted by the audiophile community; they seem to be doing the same with these C390s, though I've never heard it.

I run an older Onkyo CD changer with my system that uses Apogee Stage speakers. There is nothing wrong with the sound from my Onkyo changer, and I doubt they have made the new model sound bad.


Yes -- Wolfson is what I meant...thanks...

Does that mean it should, theoretically, crank out some decent sound?

It should sound great.


Yes, I understand that, but then one can argue why do they include it on multichannel receivers? I mean, digital DVD and BD players have their own onboard DACs as well, and they also offer digital outs to match to AVRs and processors -- is the difference just between the multitude of separate cabling needed to connect DVD/BD players as opposed to the left/right stereo audio jacks from a CD player?

Regardless, let's talk more about this -- sure, digital players like CD changers and single disc units have their own DACs, but stereo receiver/integrated amp manufacturers take the stance then that the players will definitely offer better DACs than the receiver or amp's digital interfaces would preface, would they not? Why not offer the option?

In other words, what I'm saying is, why do stereo connection devices like receivers or integrated amps only offer analog inputs for connecting devices like CD players? Isn't this assuming that the player must employ "better" conversion methods/internals?

You have asked multiple questions, and I see that you have already gotten some of these answers from someone else already, but:

Many people who favor 2 channel systems run analog only, and would be put off by having any digital processing in it at all.

Having a digital input adds cost to an otherwise analog device. And if all sources have at least a two channel analog output, there is little (or nothing) to be gained from having it in the 2 channel receiver.

With multichannel, you are correct that it would be inconvenient to hook up all of the analog connections.

With multichannel, they often process the sound digitally, for bass management, delays, etc., and it would be very inconvenient to set up each source separately, which is what you would have to do (in most cases) if you used a switch box to hook up everything via multichannel analog inputs.

With multichannel, if the processing for bass management, etc., is digital, all analog inputs must be converted to digital for processing, so it is theoretically bad to convert your digital sources to analog and then back to digital for processing and then back to analog for actually hearing it. It is theoretically better to just do one conversion (though in practice, it may not make an audible difference, it certainly isn't going to improve the sound).

Most DVD and BD players do not have all of the conversion necessary for all of the source formats to be heard via analog output in their full glory. My BD player, for example, has only 2 channel analog outputs, which is fine, because I only use the HDMI output anyway. I did not want to pay more for having all of the conversion in the player, since I would not use it in the player anyway.

If there are new decoders made available, if it were done in the players, then you would have to replace all of your players to get the new decoding, whereas if it is done in the receiver/processor, you only need to replace the receiver/processor. This is primarily relevant to multichannel sound, so it is not an argument in favor of putting decoders in 2 channel receivers.

I imagine there are some other reasons, though this is what comes immediately to mind.


Also, there have been some 2 channel receivers and integrated amplifiers with digital inputs, but they are relatively rare. For example, Philips made some expensive 2 channel integrated amplifiers with digital inputs circa 1990.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
...

Thanks for clarification here -- so, you would say it's perfectly "okay" to listen to music (CDs in particular) via the analog RCA connections of a player/changer, as opposed to running a player's digital outs to a comparable receiving unit? I ask because if you read all the owner comments on sites like Vann's or Amazon, you'll see so many references to how these guys' CD changers "sounded so much more amazing" when they connected them through the digital connections rather than the analog RCAs...

Don't know if there is any profound science behind these "claims," I'm just saying...

First of all, people claim that all sorts of things that could not possibly affect the sound affects the sound. I have read (long ago in another forum) from someone who claimed to hear the differences between wires, even when the only difference was the insulation, and even when the only difference in the insulation was the color of the material. So claims on the internet are fairly worthless.

Second, the people doing these comparisons pretty much never do them right. The first thing they would have to do is level match the outputs, as otherwise one will be almost certainly slightly louder than the other, and consequently will subjectively sound different. The one that is louder will subjectively sound like it has more bass and more treble (because human hearing is not linear*), and typically one will hear more details as well (because it is louder). So they may hear a difference that appears to be a difference in quality, when the difference is not in quality but only in volume.


___________________________

*This is why they put "loudness compensation" switches on so many stereos, to boost the bass and treble for low volume listening. You can also test this yourself, by putting on bass heavy music (that still has plenty of midrange), and gradually turning down the volume, and you may notice that the bass seems to diminish faster than the midrange. This is not a defect in the equipment, but is a well-known aspect of human hearing, which is not the calibrated machine that many audiophiles foolishly suppose it to be.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Rick -- thanks for those suggestions and links!

Indeed, I did consider the Integra -- on paper, it would seem like this would be the beyond-perfect match for my needs, right? An Onkyo product AND one from a higher-end line: However, knowing that there is always an Integra counterpart to an Onkyo component raised some flags for me...first of all, I could have gone with the Integra version of the Onkyo stereo receiver I bought, but I just thought you weren't really paying for anything beyond the custom integration features (which I didn't need) and the brand name. Now, with regard to the Integra changers, something just makes we weary of paying substantially more for an Integra than the Onkyo counterpart when it seems they may deliver comparable performance...

Does anyone else have any thoughts on which of these would actually "perform" or possibly sound better?

http://www.onkyousa.com/model.cfm?m=DX-C390&class=Compact Disc&p=i

vs.

http://integrahometheater.com/model.cfm?m=CDC-3.4&class=CD&p=i

I doubt that in a properly conducted double blind test that anyone could hear the difference between those two. But what most people would do is just hook them up and listen sighted, and even if their bias did not get in the way (which is unlikely*), the output levels are likely to be slightly different and therefore they may subjectively seem to be qualitatively different even though it is only a difference in volume that they are hearing.

_______________________________
*There is bias in pretty much all human perception. With wine, if people are told it is more expensive, they pretty consistently believe it is better than if they are given the same wine that they are told is cheap.
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
I run an older Onkyo CD changer with my system that uses Apogee Stage speakers. There is nothing wrong with the sound from my Onkyo changer, and I doubt they have made the new model sound bad.
Okay.

Do you have any pics of your system to share?

It should sound great.
Great?

You have asked multiple questions
I'm sorry...

Many people who favor 2 channel systems run analog only, and would be put off by having any digital processing in it at all.

Having a digital input adds cost to an otherwise analog device. And if all sources have at least a two channel analog output, there is little (or nothing) to be gained from having it in the 2 channel receiver.

With multichannel, you are correct that it would be inconvenient to hook up all of the analog connections.

With multichannel, they often process the sound digitally, for bass management, delays, etc., and it would be very inconvenient to set up each source separately, which is what you would have to do (in most cases) if you used a switch box to hook up everything via multichannel analog inputs.

With multichannel, if the processing for bass management, etc., is digital, all analog inputs must be converted to digital for processing, so it is theoretically bad to convert your digital sources to analog and then back to digital for processing and then back to analog for actually hearing it. It is theoretically better to just do one conversion (though in practice, it may not make an audible difference, it certainly isn't going to improve the sound).

Most DVD and BD players do not have all of the conversion necessary for all of the source formats to be heard via analog output in their full glory. My BD player, for example, has only 2 channel analog outputs, which is fine, because I only use the HDMI output anyway. I did not want to pay more for having all of the conversion in the player, since I would not use it in the player anyway.

If there are new decoders made available, if it were done in the players, then you would have to replace all of your players to get the new decoding, whereas if it is done in the receiver/processor, you only need to replace the receiver/processor. This is primarily relevant to multichannel sound, so it is not an argument in favor of putting decoders in 2 channel receivers.

I imagine there are some other reasons, though this is what comes immediately to mind.


Also, there have been some 2 channel receivers and integrated amplifiers with digital inputs, but they are relatively rare. For example, Philips made some expensive 2 channel integrated amplifiers with digital inputs circa 1990.
I know that H/K is immediately recommended when it comes to stereo receivers with digital inputs; what I was concerned with, primarily, was the fact that these so-called "owner reviews" of models like the 390 on sites like Vann's and Amazon state that there was an immediate improvement in sound when they ran the changer's digital outs instead of the analogs -- which brings me to this topic that was addressed in a different post and which I will now reply to...
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
First of all, people claim that all sorts of things that could not possibly affect the sound affects the sound. I have read (long ago in another forum) from someone who claimed to hear the differences between wires, even when the only difference was the insulation, and even when the only difference in the insulation was the color of the material. So claims on the internet are fairly worthless.

Second, the people doing these comparisons pretty much never do them right. The first thing they would have to do is level match the outputs, as otherwise one will be almost certainly slightly louder than the other, and consequently will subjectively sound different. The one that is louder will subjectively sound like it has more bass and more treble (because human hearing is not linear*), and typically one will hear more details as well (because it is louder). So they may hear a difference that appears to be a difference in quality, when the difference is not in quality but only in volume.


___________________________

*This is why they put "loudness compensation" switches on so many stereos, to boost the bass and treble for low volume listening. You can also test this yourself, by putting on bass heavy music (that still has plenty of midrange), and gradually turning down the volume, and you may notice that the bass seems to diminish faster than the midrange. This is not a defect in the equipment, but is a well-known aspect of human hearing, which is not the calibrated machine that many audiophiles foolishly suppose it to be.
Yes, I totally get the whole loudness vs. quality debacle -- I understand that a perceived "louder" signal or output is immediately labeled as "better" or of "higher quality." I just thought there was something to all these claims that the analog outputs of this particular changer model didn't really sound nearly as good as when the digital outs were connected -- as you stated, though, these so-called "comparisons" are most likely never done right, and I can imagine some self-proclaimed audio junkie standing there thinking the only way to make their music sound "premium" is to connect the digital outs to their surround AVR...
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
I doubt that in a properly conducted double blind test that anyone could hear the difference between those two. But what most people would do is just hook them up and listen sighted, and even if their bias did not get in the way (which is unlikely*), the output levels are likely to be slightly different and therefore they may subjectively seem to be qualitatively different even though it is only a difference in volume that they are hearing.

_______________________________
*There is bias in pretty much all human perception. With wine, if people are told it is more expensive, they pretty consistently believe it is better than if they are given the same wine that they are told is cheap.
I understand.

The Integra was definitely a good suggestion -- I may go for it, if I could first exhaust the possibility of higher-end type carousel changers available beyond it...
 
anamorphic96

anamorphic96

Audioholic General
I understand.

The Integra was definitely a good suggestion -- I may go for it, if I could first exhaust the possibility of higher-end type carousel changers available beyond it...
You will at least get a 3 year warranty with the Integra over the Onkyo and considering how problematic changers can become it might be the best bet.
 
Z

zumbo

Audioholic Spartan
Why don't you just tell me?
A cd is 2-channel. A cd player uses analog outputs.

The point of a "high-end" cd player would be it's DAC's. In order to utilize the players DAC's, you would use the analog outputs anyway.
 
washburn

washburn

Audioholic
I use an old(ish) NAD dvd changer which plays CDs (and SACDs) and use my Super Pro 707 DAC with it - best of both worlds - comfort of a changer with good SQ through the external DAC. the NAD is essentialy just a transport :)
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
Okay.

Do you have any pics of your system to share?



Great?



I'm sorry...



I know that H/K is immediately recommended when it comes to stereo receivers with digital inputs; what I was concerned with, primarily, was the fact that these so-called "owner reviews" of models like the 390 on sites like Vann's and Amazon state that there was an immediate improvement in sound when they ran the changer's digital outs instead of the analogs -- which brings me to this topic that was addressed in a different post and which I will now reply to...

I don't have any pictures of my system.

As for the "great" sound, the CD changers we are discussing will almost certainly not be the weak link in your system (unless you get one that is defective). If you put on a poorly recorded/mastered CD, obviously that may not sound great, and if your speakers are not great, then things will not sound great. But the CD changers are not going to be the cause of the less than great sound.

My guess on the "immediate improvement" in sound is that some people are biassed as you suggest (in your next post), and also it would not be surprising if the sound was slightly louder when inputed via digital rather than analog inputs (obviously, outputted on the player via outputs), thus playing on the various limitations and peculiarities of human hearing, causing careless people to believe that it is qualitatively better.
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
You will at least get a 3 year warranty with the Integra over the Onkyo and considering how problematic changers can become it might be the best bet.
Something to think about. Still, I'm just not one to go in, dig into my rack and remove the faulty piece of gear to get it fixed under warranty -- usually, it's just too much of a pain based on how it's situated on my rack.
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
A cd is 2-channel. A cd player uses analog outputs.
Right...

And?

The point of a "high-end" cd player would be it's DAC's. In order to utilize the players DAC's, you would use the analog outputs anyway.
Oh, okay -- that makes sense, and kind of where I was going with the discussion...;)
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
I use an old(ish) NAD dvd changer which plays CDs (and SACDs) and use my Super Pro 707 DAC with it - best of both worlds - comfort of a changer with good SQ through the external DAC. the NAD is essentialy just a transport :)
Thanks washburn; it sounds like a good solution you mention there, although I just don't want to use a DVD changer for the two channel system this piece would be going in...;)
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
I don't have any pictures of my system.
Darn...

As for the "great" sound, the CD changers we are discussing will almost certainly not be the weak link in your system (unless you get one that is defective). If you put on a poorly recorded/mastered CD, obviously that may not sound great, and if your speakers are not great, then things will not sound great. But the CD changers are not going to be the cause of the less than great sound.
I understand, and thank you for clarifying that -- indeed, I would like to upgrade the speakers in this two channel system at some point.

My guess on the "immediate improvement" in sound is that some people are biassed as you suggest (in your next post), and also it would not be surprising if the sound was slightly louder when inputed via digital rather than analog inputs (obviously, outputted on the player via outputs), thus playing on the various limitations and peculiarities of human hearing, causing careless people to believe that it is qualitatively better.
Is it common for the analog outs to just be "lower" in output than the digital ones? Why would this be?
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
Darn...



I understand, and thank you for clarifying that -- indeed, I would like to upgrade the speakers in this two channel system at some point.



Is it common for the analog outs to just be "lower" in output than the digital ones? Why would this be?
Whether the analog or digital input will result in a lower level or not is going to be a combination of the analog output level of the source and the "output" level of the digital to analog portion of the receiver, and if the receiver also processes all sound digitally, it will also involve the receiver's circuitry for converting the analog inputs to digital for processing. And that is assuming that otherwise all signals are processed exactly the same.

Ultimately, if you are making a receiver with digital inputs, you are going to want to get people to believe that its digital to analog convertors are the best, so one may choose to make it so that the levels tend to be higher with digital inputs, thus giving that impression to most people who are too careless and too ignorant of the relevant facts that affect such things. And although that may seem "dishonest", it is not something that needs to adversely affect the sound in any way, so it is not really a problem in itself if the manufacturer makes it that way.

On the other hand, the maker of the player will want to make its analog output slightly higher than the competition for the same reason, but with analog there are limits, as one can overdrive the input circuit causing distortion, so they are not going to be able to effectively control the results of such a comparison (except with their own brand, so that they may choose to have the lower priced units have a very slightly lower analog output level to give the illusion of an audible difference in quality).

(With the digital to analog converter in the receiver, how much boost there is to that signal [relative to maximum analog input] once it is converted to analog is totally up to the maker of the receiver. So there will be no overdriving with this in a competently designed receiver as they control the "headroom" of the relevant circuits.)
 
ron3033

ron3033

Enthusiast
I have a Sony 69ES, has DSP you can use. bought in 1992 runs superb. I read in other post somewhere the Sony ES are good 5 disk changers?

You can't change CD's on the fly though.
What about Yamaha I think CD C 600 or 697( I my have the # wrong)

Does a Sony Blueray player not play just as well as a dedicated Cd player?? Albeit, you do not have the ability to load and switch or change or shuffle music with only one disc?

That being said....... So what is a good 5 (or 6) Cd player??

thanks ron3033
 
P

PearlcorderS701

Banned
So, aside from the Integra, is there anyone else making quasi-high-end changers anymore?
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top