Do some cd players really sound better?

[Shadowman82]

So am I , the main reason why I got into Vinyl really .

[nocturnal1974]

Sorry to regurgitate an old thread but there is no way a CD player sounds better than vinyl. All this subject to equipment and recordings off course!

My Marantz CD63/Audionote DAC 1.1 Signature never sounded anywhere near as good as my customised Thorens TD160, Rega RB300 with Goldring 1022GX cartridge. And I only ever used a basic Project Phono Stage!

The biggest problem is with the CD mastering. I mastered vinyl recordings into my computer and burnt CD's and they were miles better than the commercial variants.

Nowadays the CD is positively dead. My turntable is in storage to be born again to be used as a luxury item on special occasions.

I have downloaded 24/96 or 24/192 recordings mastered from vinyl using uber expensive equipment and these sound great through headphones and amp connected to a decent sound card (Xonar DX).

I'm currently looking into connecting the Audionote DAC up to my vast digital library. There are currently copious ways to do this with network streamers and I wish my bluray player played flac files.

I would like to contrast a 24/192kHz Miles Davis 'Sketches Of Spain' digital copy to the 180g virgin vinyl I have. I think I still know who would win. I need a stylus replacement though (£132), hence why the turntable will now be a luxury item!

[Tim70_99]

Interesting thread, my experience is rather limited but for what it's worth and in agreement with pretty much everyone else, they can sound different and some might even sound better than others

I used to have a cheapish Sony CDXP somat or other (the designation escapes me) and couldn't really hear much difference between it and an Arcam Alpha 7 so I spent £200 on a CD82 upgrade and guess what still couldn't hear any major difference......Ah well not to be defeated I invested in a CD92, which I still have in my 70's system, and found that it did sound different. It was (still is) bass light in comparison with the upgraded Alpha 7 but apart from that it's fine.

I had more money than sense a few years ago and decided to give the Arcam CD192 a go and it's at least as good as the Alpha 7 (yes and probably better). If I spent any time listening to CD's I might even form an opinion as to where the differences lie.

One thing that I can agree with is that in spite of much pah-pahing interconnect cables can and do make a difference, I have heard it with my own ears (and they ain't good). As you probably know the Arcams have dual outputs, so it is very easy to directly compare two cables by simply switching between inputs on the amp. The differences can be readily heard without recourse to memory and I was surprised to find a cheap freeby cable that stood comparison with a "warm" £90 Van Den Huul. You live and learn I suppose. Oh, and to be honest I could quite happily live with any of the CD players mentioned above and still have a lot of money left to buy CDs with

[PeterW.]

Hi people

This should open a can of worms:)

Anyway, there seems to be so many different cd players out there. Technics have MASH, others have multimsampling etc.

You can get a compomemt for $50 or $5000.

Can there really be that much diiferemce in the sound quality of a cd player?

what are your opinions and expereinces?

Thanks!!

No "worms" if common sense is used.

a) there are perhaps four different top quality chip sets (Analog Devices, Wolfson, Burr-Brown (Texas Instruments) and Cirrus/Crystal) out there for DAC. More-or-less all CD players use more-or-less one or another of these chips. Keeping this in mind, the _ONLY_ possible differences between any two units using the same chip set will be in the quality of the peripherals - controls, power-supply, connectors and so forth. Full stop. At this level of quality differences between any two different-maker chipsets will be so miniscule as to be very nearly impossible to discern - I would state "impossible" - but I have not seen enough of them in good double-blind tests to make an absolute statement.

There will be tons of blather on "Tube Buffers", fancy power-supplies and much more. Blather because these items either add or delete artifacts to the original signal. If they do neither, then they are useless. If they do anything at all, then whatever they do is *necessarily* distorting the signal. If one does not "like CD sound" and so adds a tube buffer for a more "euphoneous sound", then get over it and stick to vinyl. Digital sound is merciless on bad signal - a fact of life that some find hard to manage.

Chip sets have gotten "better" over the years. As in smaller and more resilient. But not so different as a vintage Revox B225 will do so badly against a modern Sony CDPXXX.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[awkwardbydesign]

Hi people

This should open a can of worms:)

Anyway, there seems to be so many different cd players out there. Technics have MASH, others have multimsampling etc.

You can get a compomemt for $50 or $5000.

Can there really be that much diiferemce in the sound quality of a cd player?

what are your opinions and expereinces?

Thanks!!

No "worms" if common sense is used.

a) there are perhaps four different top quality chip sets (Analog Devices, Wolfson, Burr-Brown (Texas Instruments) and Cirrus/Crystal) out there for DAC. More-or-less all CD players use more-or-less one or another of these chips. Keeping this in mind, the _ONLY_ possible differences between any two units using the same chip set will be in the quality of the peripherals - controls, power-supply, connectors and so forth. Full stop. At this level of quality differences between any two different-maker chipsets will be so miniscule as to be very nearly impossible to discern - I would state "impossible" - but I have not seen enough of them in good double-blind tests to make an absolute statement.

There will be tons of blather on "Tube Buffers", fancy power-supplies and much more. Blather because these items either add or delete artifacts to the original signal. If they do neither, then they are useless. If they do anything at all, then whatever they do is *necessarily* distorting the signal. If one does not "like CD sound" and so adds a tube buffer for a more "euphoneous sound", then get over it and stick to vinyl. Digital sound is merciless on bad signal - a fact of life that some find hard to manage.

Chip sets have gotten "better" over the years. As in smaller and more resilient. But not so different as a vintage Revox B225 will do so badly against a modern Sony CDPXXX.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

How do you see, for example, NOS DACs? Mine even uses 16 in parallel to avoid on output opamp.
And on a different note, my hearing, like most peoples' I believe, is sensitive to different sounds. My wife could never hear the line whistle from a CRT TV, but it drove me mad. So one person's minor difference is another's huge difference. Both are correct, but only within their own frame of reference.
And I guess I can add my name to those who feel there is a "sigificant" difference.

[PeterW.]

I would never fault or disregard hearing claims made by anyone. Nor would I suggest that what I find acceptable is therefore acceptable to you or anyone else. As one who is also annoyed by CRT whine, I sympathize. I have seen my fair share of DACs from 'older' to 'today' and (in my opinion) I rank them right up (down) there with oxygen-free copper power cables...

They _can_ be useful if running off the optical output of a wretchedly made CD player - thereby overcoming its inherent design/execution defects. But will they produce a signal that is any different/better than a well-designed off-the-shelf player? I doubt it.

I will give you an analogy: If I am trying to move one gallon of water per hour through a pipe and at low pressure, a 1/2" pipe will do just fine. A 4" pipe (or 4 x 1/2" pipes in parallel) is overkill, overcost, overbulky - and effectively no better than the one little 1/2" pipe. It cannot be described as 'useless' as it still moves the water. But it ain't nohow an efficient use of money, material, space or energy.

Chips is cheap. And if a maker can charge you 100 X the installed cost of the additional chips so it may claim that it avoided the cost of using a $2.49 (retail) op-amp, more power to them. And I expect that your sensitive ears are quite attuned to (the cost of) those additional chips. Again, the High-End Blather Machine is churning out vast quantities of propaganda - with the full knowledge and consent of various magazine and other flack source that are utterly dependent upon it - to convince its victims that what cannot be measured, heard or discerned by actual test (double-blind) or instrument nonetheless both exists and is critically important. Further, that these indiscernables change on a sufficiently regular basis so as to obsolete last year's model whatzit and require this year's model for proper enjoyment.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[JoeE SP9]

The water analogy doesn't hold, any, water! I suggest that anyone who's interested actually listen for themselves. An awful lot of people change their mind about the audibility of a DAC after hearing a good one.

Sure some chips are very cheap and others are not. Some implementations of chips are done well others are not.

Frankly the coax output (IME) sounds better than Toslink. Once again I've actually tried both and several different DAC's. That's why I'm certain there are audible differences. Others who have listened to my gear have stated that different DAC's sound different. But then I've also found power cables to make a difference. This is after actually auditioning them. I learned in the early 80's that there is more going on than we know how to measure and evaluate.

Trust your own ears while listening to your own gear and recordings. If you don't hear differences you'll save a lot of money. If you do hear differences....

BTW: That line "whistle" from CRT's is actually the frequency that the flyback transformer operates. I hear it also. It's 15.734kHz for NTSC TV's.

[Eoin]

Hi people

This should open a can of worms:)

Anyway, there seems to be so many different cd players out there. Technics have MASH, others have multimsampling etc.

You can get a compomemt for $50 or $5000.

Can there really be that much diiferemce in the sound quality of a cd player?

what are your opinions and expereinces?

Thanks!!

No "worms" if common sense is used.

a) there are perhaps four different top quality chip sets (Analog Devices, Wolfson, Burr-Brown (Texas Instruments) and Cirrus/Crystal) out there for DAC. More-or-less all CD players use more-or-less one or another of these chips. Keeping this in mind, the _ONLY_ possible differences between any two units using the same chip set will be in the quality of the peripherals - controls, power-supply, connectors and so forth. Full stop. At this level of quality differences between any two different-maker chipsets will be so miniscule as to be very nearly impossible to discern - I would state "impossible" - but I have not seen enough of them in good double-blind tests to make an absolute statement.

There will be tons of blather on "Tube Buffers", fancy power-supplies and much more. Blather because these items either add or delete artifacts to the original signal. If they do neither, then they are useless. If they do anything at all, then whatever they do is *necessarily* distorting the signal. If one does not "like CD sound" and so adds a tube buffer for a more "euphoneous sound", then get over it and stick to vinyl. Digital sound is merciless on bad signal - a fact of life that some find hard to manage.

Chip sets have gotten "better" over the years. As in smaller and more resilient. But not so different as a vintage Revox B225 will do so badly against a modern Sony CDPXXX.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Can't quite agree there, Peter. That's a bit like saying all record players are the same because all they do is spin discs at 33rpm etc. there's a hell of a lot of thought and science that goes into digital playback. It's a very complex area and some questions don't have easy answers. The differences are very audible.

It's not that it's hard to do digital playback, it's easy. But it's really hard to do well. A lot like vinyl..?!

[awkwardbydesign]

Chips is cheap. And if a maker can charge you 100 X the installed cost of the additional chips so it may claim that it avoided the cost of using a $2.49 (retail) op-amp, more power to them.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Actually I don't think it has anything to do with cost. My DAC is the Teradak Chameleon, created in response to all the modders, like me, who bought the Valab DAC, but wanted something more mod friendly. Michael @ Teradak doubled the chips and made it easier to change caps. etc.
BTW, I use over 30 opamps in my active xover, and different opamps mostly sound different. Avoiding them completely is a worthwhile goal, like capacitors.

[awkwardbydesign]

But then I've also found power cables to make a difference. This is after actually auditioning them.

You may find you get abuse for that. I have.

[youngdand]

anyone tried one of these?

http://www.partsconnexion.com/t/Index/burson.php

[JoeE SP9]

But then I've also found power cables to make a difference. This is after actually auditioning them.

You may find you get abuse for that. I have.

My attitude is, if you hear a difference invest in them. If you hear no difference save your money. If you don't hear a difference don't tell me what I can and can't hear. I don't push my ideas on anyone. I encourage people to actually listen and make up their own minds.

In 1976 with a fresh BS Elec. Eng. I thought that specs told all and all wires and cables sound the same. I've learned over the years (by actually listening) that neither of those ideas were correct.

[awkwardbydesign]

anyone tried one of these?

http://www.partsconnexion.com/t/Index/burson.php

Not tried them personally, yet, but they seem to be highly rated by many. Sometimes problems with fitting them, though.

[PeterW.]

Can't quite agree there, Peter. That's a bit like saying all record players are the same because all they do is spin discs at 33rpm etc. there's a hell of a lot of thought and science that goes into digital playback. It's a very complex area and some questions don't have easy answers. The differences are very audible.

It's not that it's hard to do digital playback, it's easy. But it's really hard to do well. A lot like vinyl..?![/quote]

Not even a little bit like the same thing. Vinyl uses a transducer, gravity, speed, lateral forces and several other purely mechanical tangibles every one of which has to be *just* right for it to work at all. Any mechanical system, at best, approaches perfection without ever achieving it. Such system in multiple modes requires even more care.

Digital reproduction is simply-and-only a matter of reading the 0 and 1 information as it is encoded. Full Stop. There are mechanical parts involved without which the system will not operate, but those parts have _NOTHING_ to do with the signal, how it is read and how it is processed. So, unless you are telling me that one DAC (or chipset) does some magic on all those 0s and 1s that changes the nature of the sound so-encoded that another one does not do, then you are left with a pretty basic concept which, in in the words of William of Occam, either is, or is not. If it is, then the blather remains blather. If it is not - then precisely how is that so? There ain't no middle ground. Nohow.

Guys and gals - digital reproduction is about the easiest thing to do out there. What is difficult is to record anything well enough to make it worthwhile. Yes, there are very lossy media for digital reproduction that simply do not include all the information - but that is in the recording, not the playback. And, lest you retreat behind 'oversampling' and similar, all that is necessary is to get 100% of the ecoded information to analog. No more. And once that is achieved, nothing else much matters.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA