Do expensive CD players sound better?

[Lordoftherings]

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

Mmmm... What can I say to get out of my trap hole?
I say what I think, I think what I hear?
Does it sounds right?

Perhaps with less jitter it will sound clearer.

* Tom Nousaine? Is he not an expert on subwoofers?

 

[Lordoftherings]

People have their rights to their own opinions.

And mine is that I can find the right CD player (analog output) to match with the right set of speakers, and choose the one that sounds more pleasing to my own set of ears, with that particular set of speakers, thank you very much.

 

[PENG]

People have their rights to their own opinions.

And mine is that I can find the right CD player (analog output) to match with the right set of speakers, and choose the one that sounds more pleasing to my own set of ears, with that particular set of speakers, thank you very much.

I believe most people don't have time to use their ears to find out which CD player matches with which set of speakers. Do you match them to amps, preamps, AVRs too? Do you think the best matched sets of audio gear for you would also be best for other people or you will tell them to do their own matching with their own ears?

I guess it would be like marriage right, I mean natually matching is assumed in marriages, well, may be not, because an initially matched marriage could still end up in separation/divorce but with matched audio gear they wouldn't become unmatched later right?

 

[Lordoftherings]

^ I stick strictly to speakers matching. And I don't think then, I listen.
Oh, and I do take the time too.

* Marriage? What do I know about marriage that you don't?

** PENG, I see that your sense of humor is getting sharper as time goes by.

You take care now,
Bob

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... but with matched audio gear they wouldn't become unmatched later right?

But, your brain may think they became unmatched Does that count?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Mmmm... What can I say to get out of my trap hole?
I say what I think, I think what I hear?
Does it sounds right?

Perhaps with less jitter it will sound clearer.

* Tom Nousaine? Is he not an expert on subwoofers?

Jitter is way over hyped
As to Tom, well he has several talents besides being a sub guru. He has a good number of articles out there. some or all may be listed at his web page.

 

[PENG]

But, your brain may think they became unmatched Does that count?

Surely it counts, as Seth=L said, the brain is very creative.

 

[JDawg]

I'm not sure what all this talk about jitter is and how it affects sound quality. I'm thinking of getting a NAD 515BEE if I can get one at the right price. The Marantz CD5003 also looks like a nice player within my price range. I also have a PS3 that sounds pretty good to my ears so I may consider using that as a CD player instead of getting a dedicated cd player. The only thing I don't like about that is I have to turn my TV on to see what track I'm playing if I'm not familiar with the CD.

 

[WmAx]

Jitter talk again? LOL. Credible perceptual tests have been performed by Dolby and a few others; actual blinded tests with subjects having to identify audibility of jitter on test signals and on music samples, to determining an actual thresh hold. Any 'test' or 'experiment' discussed by audiophiles or audiophile 'engineers' never refers to any such perceptual tests -- they simply use the standard sighted listening test which is notoriously unreliable.

Well, in the tests using blinded protocols, it has been determined that any modern, properly functioning CD player has jitter FAR BELOW audibility for even the most jitter-sensitive music, and even below audibility for almost all test signals. Jitter simply is not a REAL issue on cd players.

-Chris

 

[Lordoftherings]

My thought, and mine only, unless others agree with me.

I'll take a CD player with low measured jitter anytime over one that has a huge amount of it.

I firmly believe that it will be more accurate at reproducing the real thing than one with no attention at reducing it.

 

[Lordoftherings]

I'm not sure what all this talk about jitter is and how it affects sound quality. I'm thinking of getting a NAD 515BEE if I can get one at the right price. The Marantz CD5003 also looks like a nice player within my price range. I also have a PS3 that sounds pretty good to my ears so I may consider using that as a CD player instead of getting a dedicated cd player. The only thing I don't like about that is I have to turn my TV on to see what track I'm playing if I'm not familiar with the CD.

The PS3 does not make a great CD player.
Personally, I'll go with the Marantz CD5003.

 

[WmAx]

I'll take a CD player with low measured jitter anytime over one that has a huge amount of it.

I firmly believe that it will be more accurate at reproducing the real thing than one with no attention at reducing it.

And what CD players have 'huge' amounts of jitter? I don't know of any made in the last decade or so that are operating properly, except, ironically, one or two 'audiophile' units that I saw measured. LOL. The average player has incredibly low jitter, relative to the amount that is required to be audible.

I personally use a Marantz 5 disc player. I can't remember the model number off hand... 400x something? Anyways, it's physical build quality internally is much higher than most units. I take apart most things to inspect them, and the Marantz has far more robust mechanical parts and better electronic components internally, compared to several units that I compared it to from Pioneer, Panasonic, Yamaha, RCA, etc.. It also has a handsome solid metal front - a nice touch IMO.


-Chris

 

[lsiberian]

And what CD players have 'huge' amounts of jitter?
-Chris

I think he's confusing his natural jittery state with some sort of measurably audible artifact. The name Marantz probably relaxes him and puts him at ease.

Now on the audible difference part. I've heard crappy cd players before and usually they have issues with reading discs(skipping) or gain issues. These players are obvious to anyone that isn't deaf. However those were rare occasions. Spending 100s on a cd player is stupid unless it's one of those jukeboxes with the 600 discs. I've always wanted to try those.

They are supposed to have one that does everything including blu-rays coming out soon. It would save my lazy but from having to get up and change discs.

I do prefer standalone players to the PS3 because you need a display on to navigate the PS3. I picked up a Onkyo 6 disc changer earlier this year and am very impressed. It works find out of the box with many receivers remote. It has excellent sound just like any other decent player I've had.

 

[gene]

The sonic differences between CD players only matter when using the analog outputs of the respective players. Most people are using digital outs to their AVR's which now become the limiting factor. Most modern AVR's have very high quality DAC's so it becomes a moot point. Read my Denon DVD-A1UDCI review of the Universal Blu-ray player for more info on this topic.

 

[Lordoftherings]

The sonic differences between CD players only matter when using the analog outputs of the respective players. Most people are using digital outs to their AVR's which now become the limiting factor. Most modern AVR's have very high quality DAC's so it becomes a moot point. Read my Denon DVD-A1UDCI review of the Universal Blu-ray player for more info on this topic.

Thanks Gene for the clarification.

* I'm always referring to the analog outputs, when I talk about CD players.

** For the digital outputs, a good solid transport takes priority.

*** And I also like dual differential Dacs in my player, or Pre/Pro, or A/V Receiver.
I'm a true die-hard fan from the analog outputs of any CD player (of course with quality Dacs).

~~~ Conclusion: Choose your opium from the component with the best Dacs, analog or digital connection, from what does sound best.

 

[woofersus]

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.

Just as an FYI, the CD-5 didn't use tubes, although that's not to say it wasn't designed to flatter. I don't know for sure because that model was discontinued before I became a dealer.

It's true that not all high end cd players are accurate though. This is a matter of personal taste, I suppose. Some people shun all tube gear because it's less accurate, while others love it. I can tell you that in their current lineup, the CD-10 is designed to be accurate, while the CD-15 was designed to be slightly flattering. The SACD-15 is a more accurate design, but adds SACD playback. Their really expensive player, according to Onix, is designed to be accurate but it sounds better to me than the CD-15. I'm not really sure why, but it does.

Anyhow, all that to say that I think there is definitely a difference in how CD-players sound, but that doesn't mean the cheaper ones are less accurate. I think there's a little more at play in the overall feel of the sound than just the correct levels of each frequency.

The sonic differences between CD players only matter when using the analog outputs of the respective players. Most people are using digital outs to their AVR's which now become the limiting factor. Most modern AVR's have very high quality DAC's so it becomes a moot point. Read my Denon DVD-A1UDCI review of the Universal Blu-ray player for more info on this topic.

Very true in HT situations, but it seems like people are more likely to buy expensive source components for two channel systems, where they are more likely to use analog outputs. I know I have a cheapo Philips DVD player in my ht running through my receiver using HDMI. The nicer stuff is in my two channel system. This makes me wonder about all those $1k DACs out there. If the primary differences between different CD players then maybe a better CD player would be just as good as a separate DAC, save the cost of the cables, and have fewer connections for the sound to pass through.

 

[Seth=L]

Just as an FYI, the CD-5 didn't use tubes, although that's not to say it wasn't designed to flatter. I don't know for sure because that model was discontinued before I became a dealer.

It's true that not all high end cd players are accurate though. This is a matter of personal taste, I suppose. Some people shun all tube gear because it's less accurate, while others love it. I can tell you that in their current lineup, the CD-10 is designed to be accurate, while the CD-15 was designed to be slightly flattering. The SACD-15 is a more accurate design, but adds SACD playback. Their really expensive player, according to Onix, is designed to be accurate but it sounds better to me than the CD-15. I'm not really sure why, but it does.

Anyhow, all that to say that I think there is definitely a difference in how CD-players sound, but that doesn't mean the cheaper ones are less accurate. I think there's a little more at play in the overall feel of the sound than just the correct levels of each frequency.



Very true in HT situations, but it seems like people are more likely to buy expensive source components for two channel systems, where they are more likely to use analog outputs. I know I have a cheapo Philips DVD player in my ht running through my receiver using HDMI. The nicer stuff is in my two channel system. This makes me wonder about all those $1k DACs out there. If the primary differences between different CD players then maybe a better CD player would be just as good as a separate DAC, save the cost of the cables, and have fewer connections for the sound to pass through.

I never said that the CD-5 used tubes, but that it's manufactured by a company that uses tubes to give their gear a distinct sound. As Bob Carver did with his Silver Seven, they likely attempted to create a tube like sound without actually using tubes when designing the CD-5.

 

[woofersus]

I never said that the CD-5 used tubes, but that it's manufactured by a company that uses tubes to give their gear a distinct sound. As Bob Carver did with his Silver Seven, they likely attempted to create a tube like sound without actually using tubes when designing the CD-5.

I stand corrected. You may be right, too. Most of the Onix cd players during that time were twins with Music Hall units, so there may be more info to that specific point by looking at information on the Music Hall CD25 series.

 

[mtrycrafts]

....
Their really expensive player, according to Onix, is designed to be accurate but it sounds better to me than the CD-15. I'm not really sure why, but it does.

.....

Perhaps this is because of the way it was compared? Psychological factors entered the comparison protocol

 

[woofersus]

I never said that the CD-5 used tubes, but that it's manufactured by a company that uses tubes to give their gear a distinct sound. As Bob Carver did with his Silver Seven, they likely attempted to create a tube like sound without actually using tubes when designing the CD-5.

I stand corrected. You may be right, too. Most of the Onix cd players during that time were twins with Music Hall units, so there may be more info to that specific point by looking at information on the Music Hall CD25 series.