Using DVD Player as CD Player

[3x10^8]

Hey there everyone. I just had a quick question. Currently, I'm using my DVD player as my primary CD player. Is this "ok" to do? Am I getting the proper sound out of my CD's? To me, it seems logical to use a device with digital outs to play a digital format. Any thoughts on this? Sorry if this has been covered before.

If not "ok", do you recommend my purchasing a CD player with digital outs? or should I just purchase a plain-jane cd player?

Not sure if this is relevant, but my current setup consists of: Onkyo TX-SR602, Energy XL-250's, XL-150's, XL-C100, and Energy S8.3 sub.

Thanks for any advice in advance.

 

[MACCA350]

Using digital outs there's no difference. If you buy a separate CD player you're just wasting you money

cheers

 

[Dan Driscoll]

I always smile and shake my head when I hear comments like that.

It depends on the DACs and audio opamps (or tubes) in the various components. I'm still using the analog outputs of my 10 year old Carver CD player because CD's sounds better than if I use the digital ouput and allow my processor to do the D to A conversion. And it sounds a lot better than CDs played on my DVD player, regardless of whether the DVD player or processor does the D to A conversion.

FWIW, I agree with the "bits are bits" people that it shouldn't make a difference. But I've been into audio and electronics long enough to know that the real world often doesn't match match what 'should be'. So try hooking it up in several different combinations and see if you hear a difference.

 

[Pyrrho]

It is perfectly fine to use a DVD player to play CDs. I personally use a separate CD changer because I do not like the slow loading times of typical DVD players, and I like using a changer to play long pieces of music that continue on multiple CDs. With a DVD changer, typically I would have a longer pause between discs while the player loads the disc. As for sound quality, for you to accurately test that, you would need to level match the different players in order to have a meaningful test. Otherwise, because human hearing is not linear, if one is very slightly louder than the other, it will subjectively be heard as having more bass and more treble, and will often be described as being "fuller", "clearer", "more detailed" (of course one can hear more details if it is a bit louder!), etc., but often will not be noticed as being louder. This aspect of human hearing is why old stereo receivers typically had a "Loudness Compensation" switch that boosted the bass, and usually the treble as well. You can hear the effect for yourself simply by playing with the volume control when playing music that has plenty of bass. As the volume decreases, the bass appears to diminish faster than the midrange, which is simply the result of human hearing being nonlinear (hearing midrange has greater survival value than hearing frequency extremes). Most audiophiles do not bother to level match equipment, and therefore their listening tests are meaningless because the difference perceived, even if real, may simply be a slight difference in volume. Assuming that your equipment is not malfunctioning and operating in accordance with its specifications, it is doubtful if you would ever hear a difference between your current DVD player and other players with typical recordings if the players were properly level matched.

 

[sokrman14]

Well Put Dan Driscoll, but I have a question for you. My dad is using a Denon DVD3910 and AVR3805. I believe they use the same D/A converters, now should there be a difference between analog cables and a fiberoptic or their Denon Link? Just curious, but I agree with all of your other comments.

 

[Pyrrho]

I always smile and shake my head when I hear comments like that.

It depends on the DACs and audio opamps (or tubes) in the various components. I'm still using the analog outputs of my 10 year old Carver CD player because CD's sounds better than if I use the digital ouput and allow my processor to do the D to A conversion. And it sounds a lot better than CDs played on my DVD player, regardless of whether the DVD player or processor does the D to A conversion.

FWIW, I agree with the "bits are bits" people that it shouldn't make a difference. But I've been into audio and electronics long enough to know that the real world often doesn't match match what 'should be'. So try hooking it up in several different combinations and see if you hear a difference.

As I recall, many Carver CD players had built in processors to alter the sound (the name "digital time lens" comes to mind, though perhaps I am misremembering the name used). Do you have such processing in your player? If so, that will make an audible difference, and you will then not be comparing the same data.

 

[3x10^8]

I appreaciate the input from everyone. Thanks!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Welcome aboard, speed of light man Are you into physics?

 

[MACCA350]

Dan Driscoll wrote:

I'm still using the analog outputs of my 10 year old Carver CD player because CD's sounds better than if I use the digital output and allow my processor to do the D to A conversion.

This does nothing to answer 3x10^8's question, in this situation of course there is a sonic difference, I never said there was no difference between players when using the analogue outs(or for that matter comparing digital and analogue outs)

3x10^8 was asking if there is enough of a difference in the sound between using his current DVD player connected via DIGITAL and a separate CD player and connecting via DIGITAL to warrant the purchase?

The answer to the question is simply, NO.

cheers

 

[Dan Driscoll]

As I recall, many Carver CD players had built in processors to alter the sound (the name "digital time lens" comes to mind, though perhaps I am misremembering the name used). Do you have such processing in your player? If so, that will make an audible difference, and you will then not be comparing the same data.

No, mine does not have any additional processing. It has BB DACs and opamps, although I don't recall the exact model numbers, I haven't had it open for several years.

 

[Dan Driscoll]

Well Put Dan Driscoll, but I have a question for you. My dad is using a Denon DVD3910 and AVR3805. I believe they use the same D/A converters, now should there be a difference between analog cables and a fiberoptic or their Denon Link? Just curious, but I agree with all of your other comments.

The DACs are only part of the circuit. A very critical part, but other factors still come into play, such as the opamps and the power supply.

Assuming the circuits are the same design and use the same components, then in theory the only difference should be the tolerances of the various components, which would be well below the level that you could hear. So there should be no audible difference between using the analog output from the player or the digital ouptut and allowing the receiver to do the D to A conversion, as well as the amplification. However, in the real world there are always differences, the power supply probably being the biggest in this instance. The only way to really know is to listen.

 

[Dan Driscoll]

Dan Driscoll3x10^8 was asking if there is enough of a difference in the sound between using his current DVD player connected via DIGITAL and a separate CD player and connecting via DIGITAL to warrant the purchase?

The answer to the question is simply, NO.

cheers

I recommended an alternative, although in a roundabout manner. I'm telling him to try the analog outputs. He may be pleasantly surprised.

 

[westcott]

I always recommend keeping A/D and D\A conversions to a minimum.

Sending your CD output via analog only adds to the number of conversions necessary. Your CD player has to convert it to analog and then your receiver has to convert it back to digital. Not optimal.

Keeping your audio in the digital world is the better solution, especially with a digital connection most of the time.

 

[shokhead]

I recommended an alternative, although in a roundabout manner. I'm telling him to try the analog outputs. He may be pleasantly surprised.

Its more then likly he has better BM in the receiver then the player also. Most use dig. I play around with both but for the most part dig. So its more about the receiver when going dig.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I always recommend keeping A/D and D\A conversions to a minimum.

Sending your CD output via analog only adds to the number of conversions necessary. Your CD player has to convert it to analog and then your receiver has to convert it back to digital. Not optimal.

Keeping your audio in the digital world is the better solution, especially with a digital connection most of the time.

That is my take on this as well. Not that it matters much.

 

[Dan Driscoll]

I always recommend keeping A/D and D\A conversions to a minimum.

So do I, but I want the best DAC to be doing the conversion, whether it is in the player or the receiver.

Sending your CD output via analog only adds to the number of conversions necessary. Your CD player has to convert it to analog and then your receiver has to convert it back to digital. Not optimal.

Until 4-6 years ago, that was the case, only high end receivers and some processors had analog pass-thru. But there was a huge backlash against receivers and processors that digitized all inputs because very often a quality player would have better DACs and analog circuits than the receiver or processor. It also negated the advantages of an outboard DAC, which was becoming more common in mid-fi rigs as prices dropped. Another issue was cost, it is usually less expensive to upgrade a player, rather than the receiver or processor. As a result, most half-way decent receivers sold in the past 4-6 years and virtually all processors now have an analog pass-thru option, so that incoming analog signals are not digitized. This allows the user to listen and decide for themselves which configuration sounds better, or to add an out-board DAC.

So unless you have an older receiver without an analog pass-thru, the re-digitizing is not an issue. If you do have an older receiver, you may want to consider replacing it.

 

[Dan Driscoll]

Its more then likly he has better BM in the receiver then the player also. Most use dig. I play around with both but for the most part dig. So its more about the receiver when going dig.

We're talking stereo CD's, not multi-channel audio, so there is no bass management. The only exception would be if the OP has small main speakers and wants to send the bass signals to the sub-woofer. But he hasn't indicated that.

 

[westcott]

So do I, but I want the best DAC to be doing the conversion, whether it is in the player or the receiver.



Until 4-6 years ago, that was the case, only high end receivers and some processors had analog pass-thru. But there was a huge backlash against receivers and processors that digitized all inputs because very often a quality player would have better DACs and analog circuits than the receiver or processor. It also negated the advantages of an outboard DAC, which was becoming more common in mid-fi rigs as prices dropped. Another issue was cost, it is usually less expensive to upgrade a player, rather than the receiver or processor. As a result, most half-way decent receivers sold in the past 4-6 years and virtually all processors now have an analog pass-thru option, so that incoming analog signals are not digitized. This allows the user to listen and decide for themselves which configuration sounds better, or to add an out-board DAC.

So unless you have an older receiver without an analog pass-thru, the re-digitizing is not an issue. If you do have an older receiver, you may want to consider replacing it.

The CD player still has to convert the digitial information to analog to sent it out to the receiver via analog connections. That is even before it gets to the receiver.

 

[j_garcia]

Whether digital or analog, for redbook CDs, the bass management is still done at the receiver. The difference is where the D/A is taking place and it will have an influence on the sound. Whether or not it makes enough of a difference to YOU is something only you can decide. I use a separate CD/SACD player because it is a better SACD player, and while my DVD player is a very good with redbook CDs, I still use my CD player for them as well (digitally for CDs because my receiver cascades DACs for 2ch listening).

To the original question, YES you can use a DVD player for CD listening. Is it the best option? It depends on a lot of things like how much music do you listen to and how critical you are of the sound, if you ask me.

 

[Jack Hammer]

To the original question, YES you can use a DVD player for CD listening. Is it the best option? It depends on a lot of things like how much music do you listen to and how critical you are of the sound, if you ask me.

I fully agree with what j_garcia says, it really depends on how much you listen and how critical you are of the sound.

I use my dvd player to play cd's. However, after reading a similar thread last year I tried hooking up a low end 5 cd player I had laying around that only played sometimes. There music from the cd player sounded better to me. It seemed to have more range and better bass. I tried both the optical and the analog connections. This was explained as something to do with laser color or width, I don't fully recall. It was too much trouble to use the cd player as it was very unreliable. So I still use my dvd player.

That being said, the difference in sound quality wasn't enough for me to go out and spend an extra $100 or so on a separate cd player, though if someone gave me one I would use it. If you have access to one, hook it up and hear for yourself and make up your own mind. For me, my dvd player is plenty adequate for now.