Do expensive CD players sound better?

[JDawg]

I have an old Teac PD-D1200 cd player that I've been using for about the last 15 years. Then I started reading about more expensive cd players such as Cambridge Audio Azur 640C, Rotel 1072 or the NAD C542. So I was just wondering if these cd players would be a noticeable improvement over what I have right now or do all cd players sound the same?

 

[Seth=L]

I'd say no. I can't hear the difference between my Magnavox CDB-650 (1986) and my Denon DVD-2200 or the Pioneer PD-65 I used to have (which was produced for nearly a decade because it was a "reference standard").

If you want to upgrade because of other reasons, I'd say go for it. If you are expecting a difference in sound, you might hear one, but it's not likely a measurable audible difference will be heard.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have an old Teac PD-D1200 cd player that I've been using for about the last 15 years. Then I started reading about more expensive cd players such as Cambridge Audio Azur 640C, Rotel 1072 or the NAD C542. So I was just wondering if these cd players would be a noticeable improvement over what I have right now or do all cd players sound the same?

Seth=L has is correct Not about to have a sonic improvement besides being imagined because it is a different player

 

[JDawg]

If that's true then I guess I don't need to spend lots of money for a new cd player. I thought the Wolfson WM8740 24-bit/192kHz DACs in a player like the Cambridge Audio Azur 640C would've made a difference and it seems to be getting lots of good reviews. Well my Teac cd player just broke today while listening to a new cd I bought so I guess I'll have to get a new player anyways. So in the meantime I'll have to use my old crappy Magnavox portable cd player.

 

[Seth=L]

Most DACs, even old ones, are so low on processing errors they affect the audible realm very little to none.

 

[Lordoftherings]

I have an old Teac PD-D1200 cd player that I've been using for about the last 15 years. Then I started reading about more expensive cd players such as Cambridge Audio Azur 640C, Rotel 1072 or the NAD C542. So I was just wondering if these cd players would be a noticeable improvement over what I have right now or do all cd players sound the same?

Not necessarily, but I'll bet the Rotel RCD-1072 CD player (with HDCD) would sound very nice,
and might just turn you on.

* By the way, I own the Rotel RCD-971, and I just love it.

 

[chris357]

the dac doesnt matter anyway if you use the digital out on your CD into your AVR or pre/pro then you are using the dac in that. I used to use a Marantz DC6600 DVD player for an audio cd player and it was $300 new.. I recently sold it for $100.00

it was very very nice

 

[Lordoftherings]

^ Is your receiver HDCD capable?

Is the implementation of the Dacs better than inside a nice CD player?

Is there a separate transformer for music only?

Is the jitter as low as in a nice CD player.

Are the Dacs better than inside a nice CD player, and again with the right implementation?

Is your receiver up to the task (quality of the caps, analog circuitry, filters, etc.) as much as in a nice CD player?

 

[Seth=L]

^ Is your receiver HDCD capable?

Is the implementation of the Dacs better than inside a nice CD player?

Is there a separate transformer for music only?

Is the jitter as low as in a nice CD player.

Are the Dacs better than inside a nice CD player, and again with the right implementation?

Is your receiver up to the task (quality of the caps, analog circuitry, filters, etc.) as much as in a nice CD player?

All neglegible to the human ear my friend.

 

[Lordoftherings]

All neglegible to the human ear my friend.

Maybe to yours, but not to all.

 

[Seth=L]

Maybe to yours, but not to all.

Human ears have limitations on what they can hear, this applies to all humans.

Human brains are very creative, this applies to all humans.

 

[skers_54]

^ Is your receiver HDCD capable?

Is the implementation of the Dacs better than inside a nice CD player?

Is there a separate transformer for music only?

Is the jitter as low as in a nice CD player.

Are the Dacs better than inside a nice CD player, and again with the right implementation?

Is your receiver up to the task (quality of the caps, analog circuitry, filters, etc.) as much as in a nice CD player?

If you want to do any bass management, the receiver has to do an ADC in order to process the signal. So you're still using the receiver's DACs unless you use a pure direct mode.

 

[Lordoftherings]

Human ears have limitations on what they can hear, this applies to all humans.

Human brains are very creative, this applies to all humans.

^ I like that.

 

[Lordoftherings]

If you want to do any bass management, the receiver has to do an ADC in order to process the signal. So you're still using the receiver's DACs unless you use a pure direct mode.

I'm a purist, I'll live without bass management, and use the Pure Direct audio mode.
(My speakers are also full range)

Besides, my receiver has the ability to apply bass management, even to analog signals, and even in the Pure Direct audio mode! Talk about a versatile receiver!

And I prefer the Dacs (differential configuration, two Dacs), plus the very low jitter from my Rotel RCD-971 CD player (all from the analog output), than the single Dac on my receiver, using the digital connection.
This is my personal preference after several listening sessions.
I do trust my own judgement based on my hearing.

 

[j_garcia]

I am sure that when people say one CD player sounds a bit better than another, they are not talking about passing the signal digitally, they are talking about analog and the DACs and various other factors in the signal path DO make a difference. Whether or not that difference is big enough to warrant getting a top dollar player vs an average one is up to the individual, but I have nice players and cheap players and even via analog, they all sound pretty good to my ears.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Maybe to yours, but not to all.

Well, those few who claim such superior capabilities are welcome to demo such talents under DBT. Tom Nousaine is itching to publish

 

[mtrycrafts]

If that's true then I guess I don't need to spend lots of money for a new cd player. I thought the Wolfson WM8740 24-bit/192kHz DACs in a player like the Cambridge Audio Azur 640C would've made a difference and it seems to be getting lots of good reviews. Well my Teac cd player just broke today while listening to a new cd I bought so I guess I'll have to get a new player anyways. So in the meantime I'll have to use my old crappy Magnavox portable cd player.

You still don't have to spend a lot to get good Cd playback

 

[ju10503]

I would say that a moderately priced CD player will outplay a cheap DVD/CD player, because converting that digital info to analog audio is not equivalent on all machines. This does not mean that you need to buy a Krell or Classe. I found a huge difference between my old DVD player and the Onix CD-5 both connected to the same amp, speakers, etc. at same volume. My wife guessed the Onix correctly 5 times out of 5. Hardly scientific, but my ears don't lie to me.

It is more in amps and preamps, where, to me at least, the differences are negligible if the output power and its quality is the same. BTW Seth, that's the correct spelling of the word.

 

[PENG]

I would say that a moderately priced CD player will outplay a cheap DVD/CD player, because converting that digital info to analog audio is not equivalent on all machines.

I have owned too many DVD/CD/Universal/Laser/BD/HDDVD players and so far have had only owned one DVD player that anyone could pick it out 11 out of 10 times in any kind of DBT. It is made by SOKE and I paid over $100 for it. It sucks playing CD's but sounds fine playing DVD movies. Other than that even my $29.99 DVD player sounds pretty good with CD's.

 

[Seth=L]

I would say that a moderately priced CD player will outplay a cheap DVD/CD player, because converting that digital info to analog audio is not equivalent on all machines. This does not mean that you need to buy a Krell or Classe. I found a huge difference between my old DVD player and the Onix CD-5 both connected to the same amp, speakers, etc. at same volume. My wife guessed the Onix correctly 5 times out of 5. Hardly scientific, but my ears don't lie to me.

It is more in amps and preamps, where, to me at least, the differences are negligible if the output power and its quality is the same. BTW Seth, that's the correct spelling of the word.

I feel the need to interject, and not just because you corrected my spelling.

A quick search on Google reveals that the Onix is an OEM by Shanling. Shanling is well known for producing preamps, amplifiers, and CD players with tubes. If the company's goal is to produce "warm" sounding electronics it's quite simple to design a CD player that would emulate the sound of a tube line output using a transistorized configuration (Bob Carver achieved this on his amplifiers only on the input stage).

It is no stretch to assume the Onix would sound different from most CD players, as does the PlayStation 1 video game system released by Sony that a few audiophiles claimed was on the level with some 5K CD players because it had a mellow and warm sound signature to it. The Playstation 1's intention was not to be a CD player, therefore linear output was not a requirement. It's quite possible that the Onix CD player was made intentionally to be non-linear making it have a distinct sound signature which some might like better than the flat response of basically any other CD player that was designed to be accurate.

I try to watch out for those intentionally non-linear CD players and other devices, since they are not accurate. I have no use for non-accurate source components, preamps, and amplifiers. I've got a enough trouble on my hands trying to get speakers that are linear, and getting room acoustics to go with it.