How much difference does a CD player make?

[Carl Reid]

Yep, it's time to rekindle that age old debate:

How much difference does a CD Player make?

I was reminded of this question, when I saw Resident Loser stiring up trouble in the $1k CD thread...

So my question is:

Based on your own listening experiences, how big a difference have you found between using different digital sources.... i.e.... computer sound cards, DVD players, cheap CD players, expensive CD players etc?

I notice a lot of people swear that the whole audio world revolves around having the most expensive CD player in their setup, while others will tell you that there is absolutely no difference between one digital player and the next... all 1s and 0s... I think I'm somewhere in between at the moment... I think there's a difference... I'm just torn on whether it's a big enough difference to justify the extra outlay of cash....

My Experience so far

I haven't been able to hear a huge difference between dedicated entry level CD players (NAD and Marantz), ultra cheap DVD players and the sound card of a Mac Mini... Though I did hear differences and my favourite was undoubtedly the Marantz CD5001 (which was actually cheaper then the NAD it replaced)....

I have heard great sounding setups driven by expensive CD players and ones drvien by cheapo DVD players... So I know it's possible to have a thoroughly enjoyable setup without an expensive CD player.

Unfortunately, I've yet to do a direct A/B comparision between say a $1K CD player and my $75 DVD player.... I'm dying to do one of those...

P.S. I'm in the slooooow process of rebuilding my stereo setup - so far I'm considering Revel F12 Floorstanders with a Marantz PM7001 Integrated Amp and MAYBE a Marantz SA8001 CD Player.... So that's part of why I'd love to get some feedback, before I drop nearly $1K on the Marantz.... I mean, why drop $1K if I can get virtually the same sound with a $300 Marantz CD5001 or even my Panasonic DVD player???

[PeruvianSkies]

Well, my only thought is that CD's have only sounded better as I gradually upgraded in 3 areas: the source, the speakers, and the amplification. However, it also depends on the CD. Poor quality masterings still sound like crap even when my speakers went from a $100/pair to a $4000 pair.

[Feanor]

Well, my only thought is that CD's have only sounded better as I gradually upgraded in 3 areas: the source, the speakers, and the amplification. However, it also depends on the CD. Poor quality masterings still sound like crap even when my speakers went from a $100/pair to a $4000 pair.

When all is said and done, 90% of high fidelity enjoyment comes the recording itself. Small differences, e.g. between CD players, aren't going to make or break a recording.

[Dusty Chalk]

I fully believe the source is a big deal, though not as big as the "source first" contingent on Head-Fi believe it to be, for example. I've heard a Meridian G08 in a well-tuned system, and no other source (in a system tuned to that source) I've heard comes close to the detail retrieval (out of redbook, mind you) I heard out of that setup. So on a scale of one to ten -- one being a complete skeptic, ten being a complete believer -- put me in the 9.x category.

Oh, and just to set things in perspective: I am in the school of "your system is only as good as your weakest link".

[Feanor]

CD players and DACs make less difference than speakers, amps, or preamps in my experience. But they make more difference than inteconnects and -- typically -- speaker cables, although the latter are sensitive to the amp+speaker combination. Depending on the environment of your system, they can make more or less difference than power conditioning and cables, and/or anti-vibration measures.

[Carl Reid]

CD players and DACs make less difference than speakers, amps, or preamps in my experience. But they make more difference than inteconnects and -- typically -- speaker cables, although the latter are sensitive to the amp+speaker combination. Depending on the environment of your system, they can make more or less difference than power conditioning and cables, and/or anti-vibration measures.

That's actually the conclusion I came to when I first joined this forum... That the order of priority should be Speakers, Amp/Preamp, Source and lastly Cables & Interconnects.

And so far in my experience it seems to hold true... But I'm still interested in testing these theories.... but I lack the desire to spend significant money on say a CD player, if I could have kept that cash or allocated it to a better amp or speakers...

For example, as I mentioned earlier... I'm considering a Marantz PM7001 Integrated with SA8001 CD, driving Revel Concerta F12s...

However, I already have a Panasonic DVD player.... so if I was to use that as the source, I could take the money I would have spent on the 2 Marantz products and buy a Musical Fidelity A3.5 Integrated Amp instead....

[anamorphic96]

Carl why are you considering the PM7001 ? Thats an entry level integrated amp. Did you not keep your Rotel equipment ? The Rotel, Revel and Marantz SA8001 would be a stellar combo. I owned your Rotel combo for a couple of years and it would make those Revel's sing.

[Carl Reid]

Carl why are you considering the PM7001 ? Thats an entry level integrated amp. Did you not keep your Rotel equipment ? The Rotel, Revel and Marantz SA8001 would be a stellar combo. I owned your Rotel combo for a couple of years and it would make those Revel's sing.

Nope... The Rotels had to go... for a whole lot of reasons.... So I'm rebuilding from scratch...

Now as for the Marantz being entry level... it's in the same price class as the Rotel RA-1062 (the integrated amp version of the Rotel amp/preamp combo I owned)...

I've given up on seperates for now... I don't see the benefit unless you need extra power or want to mix and match... e.g. Tube Preamp with solid state Power amp... I found that the 1062 Integrated sounded just as good as my 1070pre/1080power combo, just with a third the power (which is no issue given the size of my listening room and the 90.5db efficiency of the Revels I'm considering)....

So I'm considering either:
1) Marantz PM7001 for $650US + Marantz SA8001 $900US = $1550 US
2) Rotel RA-1062 $700US + Rotel RCD-1072 $700 US = $1400 US
3) Musical Fidelity A3.5 $1650US + my existing DVD player = $1650 US

Other options in the price range I've ruled out are NAD and Cambridge Audio... I have too many concerns about their reliability....

The reason why Musical Fidelity is high on my list despite the cost difference is because my two favourite speakers the Monitor Audio GS20 and the Revel F12 have both sounded amazing on Musical Fidelity gear....

[Dusty Chalk]

3) Musical Fidelity A3.5 $1650US + my existing DVD player = $1650 USIf you can stretch your budget just a little bit more, an external DAC such as the MSB Link DAC III (on the used market) or the Zhalou/Zhaolu (?sp) DAC (new) would improve a DVD player's sound greatly. Maybe not quite up to the level of an excellent stand-alone CD player, but renders the music perfectly listenable.

[jrhymeammo]

I would never $1000 for a stock SA8001.
This is where I got mine.

http://www.amsound2.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=10

As much as I love my Marantz, I would rather go with MF A3.5. That is one sweet hifi on a budget.

JRA

[Carl Reid]

If you can stretch your budget just a little bit more, an external DAC such as the MSB Link DAC III (on the used market) or the Zhalou/Zhaolu (?sp) DAC (new) would improve a DVD player's sound greatly. Maybe not quite up to the level of an excellent stand-alone CD player, but renders the music perfectly listenable.

Thanks Dusty, I might get the Revels and the Musical Fidelity and eventually go the external DAC route...

Based on the replies, I think It makes the most sense to get the speakers and amp I really like...... and then worry about upgrading my source, by either getting a DAC or a dedicated CD player later...

[Resident Loser]

I was reminded of this question, when I saw Resident Loser stiring up trouble in the $1k CD thread...

...so that's what I did! I was wunnerin'...and silly me I thought an alternative POV for more reasonable expenditure was just what the toaster parade needed...

I mean DC gave me a legit response (which I still disagree with BTW) but PS took it as some sort of personal insult with which I felt compelled to respond in a relatively matter-of-fact (well for me at least) manner...but I digress...

To insinuate myself into this thread, I recall some time ago a poster began waxing euphoric over a particular CDP with an astronomical price tag...possibly in excess of $10k...Turns out it used an off-the-shelf, top-load Marantz drive and was housed in a highly poli$hed cha$$i$ and sported a carved billet aluminum face-plate with deep and pronounced engraving...A regular work of industrial art...It's DAC had, as I recall, the ability to provide four distinct tonal outputs...they were not called tone controls (as we all know such things are considered anathema by those of the gilded-pinnae crowd) but by a pseudo-techie name like "environmental compensation" or some such circumlocution...

These things simply strike a certain note with me...and type away I will...

jimHJJ(...jus' keepin' it real, as the kids say...)

[Carl Reid]

...so that's what I did! I was wunnerin'...and silly me I thought an alternative POV for more reasonable expenditure was just what the toaster parade needed...

Toasters? Been watching Battlestar Gallactica again? LOL



To insinuate myself into this thread, I recall some time ago a poster began waxing euphoric over a particular CDP with an astronomical price tag...possibly in excess of $10k...Turns out it used an off-the-shelf, top-load Marantz drive and was housed in a highly poli$hed cha$$i$ and sported a carved billet aluminum face-plate with deep and pronounced engraving...A regular work of industrial art...It's DAC had, as I recall, the ability to provide four distinct tonal outputs...they were not called tone controls (as we all know such things are considered anathema by those of the gilded-pinnae crowd) but by a pseudo-techie name like "environmental compensation" or some such circumlocution...


Now, that's exactly the kind of nonsense I want to avoid doing... dropping a pile of cash on a piece of fancy artwork with an equalizer/tone controls... Might as well just buy a cheap eq or an integrated with tone controls and save myself some cash....

[Carl Reid]

....As much as I love my Marantz, I would rather go with MF A3.5. That is one sweet hifi on a budget.

Thanx, that's pretty much what my decision was about... I can always pick up a CD player later if I need to....

The MF A3.5 is looking really tempting right now...

[anamorphic96]

In this case then definitely go with the MF. It's a very sweet amp. The Revel's will thank you for it in spades.

[Mr Peabody]

In my experience there is no doubt that the digital source makes a significant difference. This is a very easy thing to exhibit to yourself and I can't believe so many of you are still in denial.

Carl, www.amusicdirect.com carries a wide variety of CD players and DAC's with a 30 day return policy. If you have a hi fi shop worth it's salt in your area, you should have no problem arranging a home audition of something they carry. Why speculate and listen to those who do the same when you can easily see for your self? If you don't want to spend a fortune, try an entry level Arcam, or an Alpha 9 off the used market.

I hope not to offend anyone. I have a difficult time believeing that some of you can't hear diferences in CD players. When I bought a cdp for my daughter I compared an entry level Denon, Onkyo and Yamaha, there was not much sonic difference between the Denon and Onkyo but the Yamaha sounded quite different from them both. So if you only compared the Denon and Onkyo, I could see how maybe some one might think there's not much difference but with further experience you are bound to run across differences. I don't want to list every single experience I've had but I have had more than enough to know there is a difference in players.

I agree with the weakest link statement, there should be a balance to the level of your gear. However. you need to get the best signal and sound you can from your disc first. Speakers may change the sound but they can't give you anymore detail off the disc than what the CD player sends. My goal each time I add a new piece is to improve my sound, not just to change the sound.

[PeruvianSkies]

This weekend I will be testing the following players that I have, since I am getting a new DVD/CD/SACD player...the Parasound D3. I am going to make it a point to compare it against the following:

Denon 2910 DVD/CD/SACD
Sony DVP-NC80VB DVD/CD/SACD
Samsung HD941 DVD/CD/SACD
Denon DCM-280 CD
Philips DVD-642 DVD/CD/SACD

I am testing all of these units for their CD capabilities only just for the fun of it. These are all players that I have laying around to check out and there is a variety here of CD and DVD players so it will be interesting to see how they all handle CD's. I am expecting the Parasound to blow the competition away, but it'll be interesting how the rest compare. I am also going to be comparing them with analog connection and digital. I will be keeping all the same cables in the mix so that there are not unfair circumstances.

After doing this test I'll probably check all of their SACD skills too.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Excellent PS,

and we know that you'll let all of use know what you found, right? I need to replace my old Denon. Thanks

[Dusty Chalk]

Thanks Dusty, I might get the Revels and the Musical Fidelity and eventually go the external DAC route...

Based on the replies, I think It makes the most sense to get the speakers and amp I really like...... and then worry about upgrading my source, by either getting a DAC or a dedicated CD player later...Yuppers, makes sense to me.

[Feanor]

In my experience there is no doubt that the digital source makes a significant difference. This is a very easy thing to exhibit to yourself and I can't believe so many of you are still in denial.
...
I hope not to offend anyone. I have a difficult time believeing that some of you can't hear diferences in CD players. ..... I don't want to list every single experience I've had but I have had more than enough to know there is a difference in players.

I agree with the weakest link statement, there should be a balance to the level of your gear. However. you need to get the best signal and sound you can from your disc first. Speakers may change the sound but they can't give you anymore detail off the disc than what the CD player sends. My goal each time I add a new piece is to improve my sound, not just to change the sound.

You come close to repeating the the Golden Ears' credo: "Every component sounds different; every difference is significant. If you can't hear a difference your system or your ears are inferior. If you don't care, you aren't really an audiophile." That layers fallacy upon fallacy.

I don't deny that I've heard, (or thought I've heard), differences among CD players and DACs. I haven't had the priviledge of hearing $2000+ players in my system, but the differences between the units I've heard have been small -- dare I say -- insignificant in most cases.

The "weakest link" approach is the best from a budgeting perspective. Does that mean you'll always trade up your speakers while ignoring everything else? Of course not, because there will be a point where a significant speaker improvement, (as opposed to mere difference), will cost more than a significant amplifier improvement for example.

[E-Stat]

In my experience there is no doubt that the digital source makes a significant difference.
That has been my experience as well. I have five CD/DVD players not counting two CD Walkmen. A GamuT CD-1 exhibits better mid range focus and has a smoother more natural top end than the decidedly less refined response of the Toshiba 3960. Is the former worth 30 times that of the latter? That's a value judgment. Sure worth it to me in the main system!

rw

[PeruvianSkies]

That has been my experience as well. I have five CD/DVD players not counting two CD Walkmen. A GamuT CD-1 exhibits better mid range focus and has a smoother more natural top end than the decidedly less refined response of the Toshiba 3960. Is the former worth 30 times that of the latter? That's a value judgment. Sure worth it to me in the main system!

rw

This is a right-on-the-money statement (no pun intended). If more people would realize this there would be less debate when it comes to upgrading, differences in cables, differences in this amp or that amp, etc etc. I have come to realize that the incremental level of distinction as you get better equipment is that it becomes less and less, yet in order to achieve the upper level you need to make that decision for yourself. Is that little bit of extra refinement A. noticeable to you and B. worth the investment. I say YES to both of those as I am in search of my personal Holy Grail of audio. I am not just able to "SLAM" and have it. I must work up to it, but that is what's fun to me. I enjoy getting a little bit smarter and wiser along the path and quite frankly I think that makes me appreciate it more. If somewhere were to just drop a 1 Million Dollar Grand Enigma Reference system at my doorstep I would certainly LOVE IT, but it's not the same as the quest for it. The saving, the toying around, the fine tuning, and the development of a 'ear' for musicality and taste.

[Feanor]

This is a right-on-the-money statement (no pun intended). If more people would realize this there would be less debate when it comes to upgrading, differences in cables, differences in this amp or that amp, etc etc. I have come to realize that the incremental level of distinction as you get better equipment is that it becomes less and less, yet in order to achieve the upper level you need to make that decision for yourself. Is that little bit of extra refinement ...

All true, what you say above. But Carl's question which was, "... how big a difference ... ?". In context this must be taken to mean how big a difference relative to other components in which one might spend one's money. I don't think it was, "If you had more money than you knew what to do with, would you spend it on a better CD player".

In this present context E-Stat's reference to the GamuT versus the Toshiba is exquisitely irrelevant. For its price the GamuT ought to be f*ing amazing, but yeah, if I had all the money in the world I'd go for it -- but after that pair of MBL 9011's I've been hankering for.
...

[jrhymeammo]

See........ I suggest you get into vinyl cuz the difference in gears are like KABAM!!!!!

It makes my crappy system sound like I just spent $10k on a CDP.
btw, I've never heard any $10k player.

[Feanor]

See........ I suggest you get into vinyl cuz the difference in gears are like KABAM!!!!!

It makes my crappy system sound like I just spent $10k on a CDP.
btw, I've never heard any $10k player.


Gotta laugh about this vinyl suggestion, but hell yes!! You'll hear a lot more difference going that route.

[E-Stat]

For its price the GamuT ought to be f*ing amazing, but yeah, if I had all the money in the world I'd go for it -- but after that pair of MBL 9011's I've been hankering for.
...
:)

Actually, $3k is relatively modest given the price of some models. I bought it after direct comparisons with the incredible Burmester 969/970 units that go for a cool $56k. Were the Burms nearly twenty times better than the GamuT? Well, differences certainly existed, but only for those who wanted the best. And had already built a commensurate system around them.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/hprack04_small.jpg

They are the gorgeous units just below the Kuzma table on the left. This particular reviewer's system ran about $350k on paper. Out of site were the Nola Grand Reference speakers driven by VTL Wotans on the towers and Krell amps on the woofers. Nordost Valhalla throughout.

In my vintage system, I use a '93 Pioneer PD-54 "stable transport" CDP. You put the CD upside down on what looks like a small turntable platter. It was a great transport with a so-so DAC and output stage. I find that the DAC makes the biggest overall difference. I purchased a used Manley DAC with a tube output stage that drives the amp directly. Not much on looks, but offered a nice improvement in the sound.

Manley DAC (http://manleylabs.com/containerpages/labDSD.html)

If I were to start out from scratch today, I would purchase an inexpensive (and expendable) DVD player as transport and buy a good DAC. Preferably one with enough output to drive an amp directly using analog gain controls like the Manley.

rw

[Feanor]

:)

Actually, $3k is relatively modest given the price of some models. I bought it after direct comparisons with the incredible Burmester 969/970 units that go for a cool $56k. Were the Burms nearly twenty times better than the GamuT? Well, differences certainly existed, but only for those who wanted the best. And had already built a commensurate system around them.
...
They are the gorgeous units just below the Kuzma table on the left. This particular reviewer's system ran about $350k on paper. Out of site were the Nola Grand Reference speakers driven by VTL Wotans on the towers and Krell amps on the woofers. Nordost Valhalla throughout.

In my vintage system, I use a '93 Pioneer PD-54 "stable transport" CDP. You put the CD upside down on what looks like a small turntable platter. It was a great transport with a so-so DAC and output stage. I find that the DAC makes the biggest overall difference. I purchased a used Manley DAC with a tube output stage that drives the amp directly. Not much on looks, but offered a nice improvement in the sound.

Manley DAC (http://manleylabs.com/containerpages/labDSD.html)

If I were to start out from scratch today, I would purchase an inexpensive (and expendable) DVD player as transport and buy a good DAC. Preferably one with enough output to drive an amp directly using analog gain controls like the Manley.

rw

Some nice stuff I must say. And you're right that $3k isn't all the money in the world though it's above my budget at the moment.

I agree about a modest transport and decent DAC being the way to go. In my case my transport is most often my computer, so there's no doubt about the the fexibility of a DAC. Just the same, I kind of covent a dCS stack.
...

[E-Stat]

Just the same, I kind of covent a dCS stack.
...
Yes, the Arcici racks are nice. A bit rich for my blood. Not sure if you can tell from the pic, but the shelves are all suspended via poles from the top. Note the brass colored nipples on the upper edge. The units have internal air bladders for greater isolation. :)

As for players, I heard the single box EMM Labs two channel player this past weekend. Placed atop a Halcyon isolation base. One of those automated units originally intended for scanning electron microscopes. Very nice indeed. He also had four of the Western Electric WE-97A amps. They are hundred watt SET amps with eight 300B tubes each. Ungodly expensive at that.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/we97.jpg

rw

[Mr Peabody]

My EAD transport is like that, where the disc goes in face up. I've been playing with DAC's now for a couple years and my advice would be compare the result of a DVD to a transport before scrapping yours. Not to get off on another tangent but it has been my experience that the transport can make a difference. I have a TDK CD recorder and it sounded horrible connected to a Conrad Johnson DAC. The same DAC worked beautifully connected to either my Krell digital out or a vintage high end Denon which I currently use with that DAC for a transport. I have also had varied results with finding a transport for my Audio Note DAC.

I also found E-stat's post right on the money.

Carl really didn't get specific about a price range or gap for his difference. One should be able to hear the difference between a $300.00 CD player of any brand and a $699.00 Arcam, on most any system. That is a reasonable upgrade. You should also be able to hear the difference between a same price Arcam and Rotel because they have very different presentations. So yes, your CD player can make a difference, a noticeable one. Those who posture against this should at least keep an open mind until gaining enough experience to say why they think this is wrong. If you have heard $2k to $3k CD players and you don't think it's worth the price per difference, like E-stat mentioned, it's up to each person's value judgement or passion for music playback. When I bought my first high end CD player I had a very good Kenwood integrted amp, KA-3300d, driving Infinity Kappa 7's. I started out listening to an Arcam Alpha 7 and the guy telling me I can upgrade the same player to an 8 or 9 later as I have the money. Where I made my mistake was listening to the 8, and then the 9. I ended up walking out carrying a brand new Alpha 9 and $1,800.00 in debt. That player on the front end of my system took it to new lofty heights from using my former $800 Kenwood. The expenditure was well worth it to me and I've always continued upward on future upgrades. There have been times when I thought the difference was not worth it, once I borrowed a $4.5k T+A SACD player to compare to my Krell 280cd, only comparing CD playback. Although the sound was different, there certainly was not enough difference, or improvement to warrant a change.

[BillyB]

Nope... The Rotels had to go... for a whole lot of reasons.... So I'm rebuilding from scratch...

Now as for the Marantz being entry level... it's in the same price class as the Rotel RA-1062 (the integrated amp version of the Rotel amp/preamp combo I owned)...

I've given up on seperates for now... I don't see the benefit unless you need extra power or want to mix and match... e.g. Tube Preamp with solid state Power amp... I found that the 1062 Integrated sounded just as good as my 1070pre/1080power combo, just with a third the power (which is no issue given the size of my listening room and the 90.5db efficiency of the Revels I'm considering)....

So I'm considering either:
1) Marantz PM7001 for $650US + Marantz SA8001 $900US = $1550 US
2) Rotel RA-1062 $700US + Rotel RCD-1072 $700 US = $1400 US
3) Musical Fidelity A3.5 $1650US + my existing DVD player = $1650 US

Other options in the price range I've ruled out are NAD and Cambridge Audio... I have too many concerns about their reliability....

The reason why Musical Fidelity is high on my list despite the cost difference is because my two favourite speakers the Monitor Audio GS20 and the Revel F12 have both sounded amazing on Musical Fidelity gear....

I wouldn't buy the better integrated amp while counting on the DVD player as a competent source.It would be the weak link and compromise your goal unless you can also swing a good CD player in the near future.Unlike many here I don't buy into the opinion that you don't need a very good CD player to achieve great sound.Like Anamorphic I'm a little confused with your amp/pre-amp combo choice because at least in theory separates should sound better not just provide more power.

That being said to your ear the integrated sounds as good and that's all that matters.I'm admittingly partial to Rotel especially at your price point.I think the Rotel 1072 is a very good player and would mate well with the Rotel integrated amp.The Arcam 73T is also a very good unit for the same price as the 1072.Very different sound so you would need to listen to it very thoroughly.Good luck with your choice.

[Carl Reid]

I wouldn't buy the better integrated amp while counting on the DVD player as a competent source.It would be the weak link and compromise your goal unless you can also swing a good CD player in the near future.Unlike many here I don't buy into the opinion that you don't need a very good CD player to achieve great sound.

Though it might seem obvious that you need a good source (CD player) to achieve great sound, there is still a lot of debate over it... I don't doubt that CD players can sound different from one another....But I'm still not convinced that CD players make a huge difference in sound quality....

The way I've generally tried to prioritize buying components is based on which ones make the most obvious contribution to overall sound quality....

I believe (though I could be wrong) that the more debated a product's contribution is, the less likely I will find any major differences by upgrading it...

Speakers - I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that all speakers sound the same & in my own experiences so far, speakers have made the biggest impact on the sound of a system.

Amplification - Generally accepted as making a difference, though not as much as speakers... and I have heard a few people claim that all Solid State sound the same... In my own experience I've found that amplification makes a difference but still substantially less than speakers.

CD Players - Highly debated, with many people claiming that it makes no difference.... When I compared two budget CD players to a DVD player and a Computer sound card, the differences were minimal.... nothing worth the added cost of buying a dedicated budget CD player...

Cables - Debated is too soft a word to describe the wars over cables.... This one is disputed to the point that it seems that one or both sides of the debate must be a bunch of lunatics... From my own experience.... apart from using thicker cable with decent shielding, the differences were not noticeable....



Like Anamorphic I'm a little confused with your amp/pre-amp combo choice because at least in theory separates should sound better not just provide more power.That being said to your ear the integrated sounds as good and that's all that matters.

There is a lot of theory in the audio world, but a lot of it is meaningless in actual listening tests.... Also keep in mind that there is theory to support the use of Integrateds instead of seperates (i.e shorter signal paths etc..)... so two sets of opposing theories could just cancel each other out... lol


I'm admittingly partial to Rotel especially at your price point.I think the Rotel 1072 is a very good player and would mate well with the Rotel integrated amp.The Arcam 73T is also a very good unit for the same price as the 1072.Very different sound so you would need to listen to it very thoroughly.Good luck with your choice.

Thanks for the suggestions.... I know Rotel is a good option.... But I'm tempted to try something different.....

[Mr Peabody]

Carl, you said you can't tell much difference between 2 budget CD players or DVD but what about a budget unit and a more expensive one? It doesn't make sense to have a $1.6k amp and put a DVD player on the front end. You really need to see what a better player can do. An UPGRADE on the front end source will make at least as much difference as the amp, if not more.

Do you know anyone who could lend you a player or DAC to try?

[PeruvianSkies]

Over the past 5 days I have been doing some various testing with my new Parasound Halo D3 universal player. I decided to put it up against some other players that I have to see and more importantly hear any differences. So here were the contenders for ONLY CD playback....while these are DVD players by trade, I was curious for the results.

Parasound Halo D3 vs. Denon 2910

This took several really long listening tests to truly get some definitive results. The Denon is a strong contender in the audio department. Both machines have the ability to isolate the circuitry for audio-only outputs. I used the exact same Coaxial cable (Tara Labs) to do the testing and everything else in my system remainded unchanged.

The biggest difference was in the overall dynamics that the D3 definitively delivered. The CD that truly showed this was the Deluxe Edition of Tears for Fears SONGS FROM THE BIG CHAIR. There was stronger and tigher bass coming from the D3 and most noticeable was the more lively sound, which my wife even commented on. She said that the D3 sounded more life-like and she was unaware of which players I was using at this time.

Parasound Halo D3 vs. Samsung HD941

I initially thought that this would be a NO CONTEST fight, but the Samsung surprised me beyond my own belief. It held up quite well and went a good many rounds before I could truly declare the D3 the winner. One problem with this test was that the output on the Samsung seemed to be a few dB's louder and it made the machine appear to have more drive, but once I was able to come up with a formula to get both machines to output at the same volume level it was definitely the D3 that was able to provide the most realistic, natural, and musical experience. This test did show though that some DVD players are at least fairly decent CD players. The biggest drawback to this unit was the inability to deliver a smooth experience. The D3 is incredibly smooth with really tight bass and highs that sing like I've rarely heard. The Samsung was capable of delivering decent drive, but was unable to reproduce the level of clarity and overall dynamics of the music.

Parasound Halo D3 vs. Sony DVP-NC80 5-Disc Changer

The Sony is a great unit for parties and quickly playing loads of music. It's one of the few players at a super low price that does DVD/CD/SACD and is a carousel unit. I am usually not a fan of these, but the Sony works well in my second system for just putting music on random and chilling around the house. I was curious how this player compared to the D3 and I played quite a few titles before making up my mind. I don't like to immediately jump to any conclusions on these tests. After a few hours I played Sarah Mclachlan's SURFACING album and was finally ready to declare a winner. The D3 was able to capture this album in a fantastic way and deliver the solid deep bass on tracks like I LOVE YOU. The Sony was OK, but you could clearly tell that it was not able to get the deep subsonic notes out just the same. It also felt like it was more subdued compared to the D3 and the D3 was far more aggressive, but at the same time smooth. The Sony was just creating sound, but not really musicality that I have quickly found in the D3.

Now these tests were interesting and I would love to get my hands on some CD-only players for comparison. This was good and compared a $2500 player with a $850 player with a $200 player and a $150 player. I was not surprised with the results in the long run, but was amazed at how well all of these DVD players did with CD's. I should point out though that it became much harder to really hear the placement of instruments in the soundfield the further I moved away from the D3 with the Denon 2910 doing the best, the Samsung was just ok, and the Sony probably the worst. The soundstage became weaker with each unit and so did the depth.

[BillyB]

Though it might seem obvious that you need a good source (CD player) to achieve great sound, there is still a lot of debate over it... I don't doubt that CD players can sound different from one another....But I'm still not convinced that CD players make a huge difference in sound quality....

The way I've generally tried to prioritize buying components is based on which ones make the most obvious contribution to overall sound quality....

I believe (though I could be wrong) that the more debated a product's contribution is, the less likely I will find any major differences by upgrading it...

Speakers - I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that all speakers sound the same & in my own experiences so far, speakers have made the biggest impact on the sound of a system.

Amplification - Generally accepted as making a difference, though not as much as speakers... and I have heard a few people claim that all Solid State sound the same... In my own experience I've found that amplification makes a difference but still substantially less than speakers.

CD Players - Highly debated, with many people claiming that it makes no difference.... When I compared two budget CD players to a DVD player and a Computer sound card, the differences were minimal.... nothing worth the added cost of buying a dedicated budget CD player...

Cables - Debated is too soft a word to describe the wars over cables.... This one is disputed to the point that it seems that one or both sides of the debate must be a bunch of lunatics... From my own experience.... apart from using thicker cable with decent shielding, the differences were not noticeable....




There is a lot of theory in the audio world, but a lot of it is meaningless in actual listening tests.... Also keep in mind that there is theory to support the use of Integrateds instead of seperates (i.e shorter signal paths etc..)... so two sets of opposing theories could just cancel each other out... lol



Thanks for the suggestions.... I know Rotel is a good option.... But I'm tempted to try something different.....

Just wanted to add that by no means do I equate much more expensive to much better sound as if it is a given.At around $700 your really not in the land of diminishing returns at least in my opinion.

To put so much thought and emphasis on good quality speakers,amp/pre-amp or separates, and think the CDP isn't at least just as crucial or at least very important is lost on me.The companies that make higher quality CDP's aren't just stealing our money.They put a lot of R&D into the design of their product.They also put higher quality parts into building their players.Of course they need to be compensated for this.Do these more expensive players perform better to justify their higher cost.I think they usually do but this is not a subject to be agreed on but rather talked about.I don't pretend to be the final word on audio.

I guess to wrap this up before I get into more trouble let me simply say this.If your willing to spend around $2000( I assume that's close to what your existing speakers and your new integrated will cost you) on a good set of speakers and power source, you should also be prepared to need to figure a few coins into the budget for the CDP.I don't think the CDP is the best place to save money.This by no way means your universal player can't sound good, thus allowing you to upgrade the CDP later as the budget allows.

I completely respect your intent to get the very best sound you can without spending money un-necessarily.Enjoy the hunt as that is half the fun.

[Carl Reid]

Just wanted to add that by no means do I equate much more expensive to much better sound as if it is a given.At around $700 your really not in the land of diminishing returns at least in my opinion.

To put so much thought and emphasis on good quality speakers,amp/pre-amp or separates, and think the CDP isn't at least just as crucial or at least very important is lost on me.The companies that make higher quality CDP's aren't just stealing our money.They put a lot of R&D into the design of their product.They also put higher quality parts into building their players.Of course they need to be compensated for this.Do these more expensive players perform better to justify their higher cost.I think they usually do but this is not a subject to be agreed on but rather talked about.I don't pretend to be the final word on audio.

I guess to wrap this up before I get into more trouble let me simply say this.If your willing to spend around $2000( I assume that's close to what your existing speakers and your new integrated will cost you) on a good set of speakers and power source, you should also be prepared to need to figure a few coins into the budget for the CDP.I don't think the CDP is the best place to save money.This by no way means your universal player can't sound good, thus allowing you to upgrade the CDP later as the budget allows.

I completely respect your intent to get the very best sound you can without spending money un-necessarily.Enjoy the hunt as that is half the fun.

Hey, don't think you're in any trouble.... I value other opinions, even ones different from my own!

I really wanted to get as much feedback in this thread as possible from people with more experience with CD players/DAC than myself (which is probably a really large list ..lol)... As I said, my opinions are based mainly on my very limited experience in this area... So I could be totally off target...

As for the budget..... assuming I get the Musical Fidelity integrated and the Revels, then the budget would be between $3K to $3.5K.... now if I add a matching Musical Fidelity CD player the budget jumps to around $5K.... Based on my experiences I feel satisfied that the amp and the speakers are worth the money, but I just haven't had enough experience to judge the CD player.... so I'm deeply disturbed at the thought of dropping an extra $1.5K for a matching CD player, and then possibly being dissapointed with the improvement it brings....

And yeah I know that I could technically buy a non-musical fudelity player for less... but then I have to worry about system synergy.... and well frankly if I was to drop money on a cd player, I'd want it to match the amp (in terms of aesthetics)....

[Carl Reid]

Carl, you said you can't tell much difference between 2 budget CD players or DVD but what about a budget unit and a more expensive one? It doesn't make sense to have a $1.6k amp and put a DVD player on the front end. You really need to see what a better player can do. An UPGRADE on the front end source will make at least as much difference as the amp, if not more.

Do you know anyone who could lend you a player or DAC to try?

I really want to compare a high end CD player with a budget one, but I'm seriously reluctant to do that in my own system.... Since I'd be really annoyed if I spent a pile of cash on a CD player and was not impressed with the difference between it and my cheapo DVD player...

Unfortunately, my only audiphile friends are ones I've introduced to this hobby, so they are even further 'behind' than I am..... so I don't have anyone to borrow a good dac/cd player from...

But, what I will do... is when I'm ready to buy the amp and speakers.... I'll get the guys at the store to swap out a cheapo dvd player with a high end cd player.... and see if I appreciate the difference.....

[Carl Reid]

Over the past 5 days I have been doing some various testing with my new Parasound Halo D3 universal player. I decided to put it up against some other players that I have to see and more importantly hear any differences. So here were the contenders for ONLY CD playback....while these are DVD players by trade, I was curious for the results.

Parasound Halo D3 vs. Denon 2910

This took several really long listening tests to truly get some definitive results. The Denon is a strong contender in the audio department. Both machines have the ability to isolate the circuitry for audio-only outputs. I used the exact same Coaxial cable (Tara Labs) to do the testing and everything else in my system remainded unchanged.

The biggest difference was in the overall dynamics that the D3 definitively delivered. The CD that truly showed this was the Deluxe Edition of Tears for Fears SONGS FROM THE BIG CHAIR. There was stronger and tigher bass coming from the D3 and most noticeable was the more lively sound, which my wife even commented on. She said that the D3 sounded more life-like and she was unaware of which players I was using at this time.

Parasound Halo D3 vs. Samsung HD941

I initially thought that this would be a NO CONTEST fight, but the Samsung surprised me beyond my own belief. It held up quite well and went a good many rounds before I could truly declare the D3 the winner. One problem with this test was that the output on the Samsung seemed to be a few dB's louder and it made the machine appear to have more drive, but once I was able to come up with a formula to get both machines to output at the same volume level it was definitely the D3 that was able to provide the most realistic, natural, and musical experience. This test did show though that some DVD players are at least fairly decent CD players. The biggest drawback to this unit was the inability to deliver a smooth experience. The D3 is incredibly smooth with really tight bass and highs that sing like I've rarely heard. The Samsung was capable of delivering decent drive, but was unable to reproduce the level of clarity and overall dynamics of the music.

Parasound Halo D3 vs. Sony DVP-NC80 5-Disc Changer

The Sony is a great unit for parties and quickly playing loads of music. It's one of the few players at a super low price that does DVD/CD/SACD and is a carousel unit. I am usually not a fan of these, but the Sony works well in my second system for just putting music on random and chilling around the house. I was curious how this player compared to the D3 and I played quite a few titles before making up my mind. I don't like to immediately jump to any conclusions on these tests. After a few hours I played Sarah Mclachlan's SURFACING album and was finally ready to declare a winner. The D3 was able to capture this album in a fantastic way and deliver the solid deep bass on tracks like I LOVE YOU. The Sony was OK, but you could clearly tell that it was not able to get the deep subsonic notes out just the same. It also felt like it was more subdued compared to the D3 and the D3 was far more aggressive, but at the same time smooth. The Sony was just creating sound, but not really musicality that I have quickly found in the D3.

Now these tests were interesting and I would love to get my hands on some CD-only players for comparison. This was good and compared a $2500 player with a $850 player with a $200 player and a $150 player. I was not surprised with the results in the long run, but was amazed at how well all of these DVD players did with CD's. I should point out though that it became much harder to really hear the placement of instruments in the soundfield the further I moved away from the D3 with the Denon 2910 doing the best, the Samsung was just ok, and the Sony probably the worst. The soundstage became weaker with each unit and so did the depth.

So overall the sonic differences between cheap to expensive DVD players weren't that great?

This is an interesting test.... and seems inline with what I'd expect.... though I suppose there is a point to be considered, that unlike dedicated CD players, the improvements from a cheap dvd to an expensive one are not soley sonic... so some of that extra cash goes towards video processing....

[PeruvianSkies]

I would venture to say that if you don't have really good speakers and other components in your system than the ability to tell the difference in sonics between average DVD or CD players will be very small and seem insignificant. So a large part of this question about CD players really has to do with the speakers ability to coherently play the source and do so with accuracy.

[Woochifer]

Though it might seem obvious that you need a good source (CD player) to achieve great sound, there is still a lot of debate over it... I don't doubt that CD players can sound different from one another....But I'm still not convinced that CD players make a huge difference in sound quality....

The way I've generally tried to prioritize buying components is based on which ones make the most obvious contribution to overall sound quality....

I believe (though I could be wrong) that the more debated a product's contribution is, the less likely I will find any major differences by upgrading it...

Speakers - I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that all speakers sound the same & in my own experiences so far, speakers have made the biggest impact on the sound of a system.

Amplification - Generally accepted as making a difference, though not as much as speakers... and I have heard a few people claim that all Solid State sound the same... In my own experience I've found that amplification makes a difference but still substantially less than speakers.

CD Players - Highly debated, with many people claiming that it makes no difference.... When I compared two budget CD players to a DVD player and a Computer sound card, the differences were minimal.... nothing worth the added cost of buying a dedicated budget CD player...

Cables - Debated is too soft a word to describe the wars over cables.... This one is disputed to the point that it seems that one or both sides of the debate must be a bunch of lunatics... From my own experience.... apart from using thicker cable with decent shielding, the differences were not noticeable....

In general, I'm very much in agreement with how you've prioritized things. In my experience, CD players can sound noticeably different, but these differences are less significant than the other factors that you've noted. Plus, in more recent years, the sound quality differences between CD players have narrowed considerably. Comparing a first generation Sony CD player that used an analog brickwall filter with no oversampling, with one of Meridian's early reference players (IIRC those cost over $5,000 back in the mid-80s), the difference was more obvious.

Differences between source components were a lot more pronounced back in the analog era, when differences between turntables, cartridges, tonearms, reel-to-reel players, tape decks, etc. were noticeable and measurable. Tweaks such as alignment adjustments and isolation indeed improved sound quality with many analog components. I think a lot of the beliefs about differences between source components and improvements resulting from tweaking with those components got ingrained among audiophiles and carried over to digital components. The difference though is that the measurable differences resulting from tweaking with digital components and those between different digital source components are minimal at best. A lot of these debates originate because of the magnitude of difference attributed by some audiophiles to digital sources or tweaks to those sources. What might have garnered general agreement with analog sources can sound nonsensical when applied to digital sources.

In the absence of huge differences between digital source components (compared to analog sources), speakers truly define the personality of a system, and the importance of amplification really depends on which speakers you choose since low impedance and/or low efficiency speakers put a different load on the amplification.

A factor that I would add to your list is the room acoustics, since the room is actually a part of your system given the degree to which it interacts with sound. The acoustical conditions of a room can create every bit as much variation in the tonal response as speakers can. Measuring and controlling for acoustical issues can make for a far bigger improvement than any single component upgrade (aside from the speakers), and make the purported benefits from cabling, power conditioning, etc. seem laughably trivial by comparison.

[Mr Peabody]

Peruvian, when you said "coaxial", did you use a digital out for your listening tests? If so, all you did was compare transports and it's very interesting that you heard a difference. I'll reserve further comment until I see what you did.

Carl, my man, that's all I can ask is that you be open minded and listen for yourself, hats off to you.

[PeruvianSkies]

Peruvian, when you said "coaxial", did you use a digital out for your listening tests? If so, all you did was compare transports and it's very interesting that you heard a difference. I'll reserve further comment until I see what you did.

Carl, my man, that's all I can ask is that you be open minded and listen for yourself, hats off to you.

Yes, I used a digital coaxial cable for all tests....everything remained the same except the transports.

[Mr Peabody]

Peruvian, your test makes you as insane as me now and it's in writing for all to see, you claim there is a difference in transports. That's why you didn't hear a night and day difference between a $200.00 player and your $2.5k player, although I too know transports can make a difference, most of the improvements to sound is done in the analog stages of the unit. In order for you to really hear the difference between players you need to use the stereo analog outputs. If someone was going to just use the internal DAC of a HT receiver, I'd agree not to spend much money on a player or just use the DVD player they have but in Carl's case where he will have a quality amp and speakers for stereo listening it would be worth buying just as high of quality CD playback because he would be counting on the players analog interprtation of the music.

[PeruvianSkies]

Peruvian, your test makes you as insane as me now and it's in writing for all to see, you claim there is a difference in transports. That's why you didn't hear a night and day difference between a $200.00 player and your $2.5k player, although I too know transports can make a difference, most of the improvements to sound is done in the analog stages of the unit. In order for you to really hear the difference between players you need to use the stereo analog outputs. If someone was going to just use the internal DAC of a HT receiver, I'd agree not to spend much money on a player or just use the DVD player they have but in Carl's case where he will have a quality amp and speakers for stereo listening it would be worth buying just as high of quality CD playback because he would be counting on the players analog interprtation of the music.

So then what I was hearing was purely a figment of my imagination? Sorry but I don't think I was dreaming during these tests.

[Mr Peabody]

You need to read what I said again. I didn't say it was your imagination but you will hear a much much larger difference between analog outs than you ever will through a digital out. In each of your listening tests you used the same DAC. As you heard, some transports do a better job of retrieving and maintaining a DIGITAL signal but it's how the analog signal is handled after the conversion from digital and the difference in the quality of the analog circuits that will make the largest difference in sound quality.

I have been in debates here before over whether transports make a difference and you proved my position on the subject. Now I'd like to see you do the same listening tests using the analog, built in internal DAC of each player, to see what you think.

[PeruvianSkies]

You need to read what I said again. I didn't say it was your imagination but you will hear a much much larger difference between analog outs than you ever will through a digital out. In each of your listening tests you used the same DAC. As you heard, some transports do a better job of retrieving and maintaining a DIGITAL signal but it's how the analog signal is handled after the conversion from digital and the difference in the quality of the analog circuits that will make the largest difference in sound quality.

I have been in debates here before over whether transports make a difference and you proved my position on the subject. Now I'd like to see you do the same listening tests using the analog, built in internal DAC of each player, to see what you think.

I typically switch back and forth between digital and analog since I have quite a few SACD's and I already have analog connections, but did NOT go through connecting all of the players I was comparing with analog and digital. I did not hear a big difference with the Denon and the D3, but I did with the others, at least much more than the Denon. This was the player that I said was not a night & day difference. I really was comparing these players to the D3 and not to each other. I definitely can hear differences with the D3 in digital and analog mode, especially in PURE DIGITAL and PURE ANALOG mode. I typically think that the digital provides better bass overall.

[Feanor]

Peruvian, your test makes you as insane as me now and it's in writing for all to see, you claim there is a difference in transports. ....

A case can be made as to why transports can make a difference, at least in principle. That's because transports can vary as to how well they read the bits and the CD and convey them to the digital out connection. If they do these less well, then bit error and jitter can be introduced.

Downstream processing in the DAC might or might not correct jitter, and bit errors can be corrected -- or compensated for -- only so well by error correction algorythms. Then too, with conventional transport and DAC there is no opportunity for the system to request a re-read of the disc to get more accurate extraction. This is the major advantage computers can provide. E.g. the EAC program will force the disc to be read many times, if necessary, to extract the data.

[Mr Peabody]

Peruvian, what are you using as a DAC when you play the digital out? When you say going digital has better bass, that means your external or receiver DAC is better than the D3's internal DAC at doing bass. This could be true but it isn't a compliment for the D3. I'm not sure you are grasping the significance of digital verses analog output. When the digital comes out it is still 1's and 0's, most, except for a few of us, feel there is no difference what so ever, digital is digital. It's after being converted to analog, a sine wave signal, that the majority of the difference is made. I'm learning that many manufacturers use filtering in the analog stage which I suspect has a lot to do with sound difference.

An analogy may be if you and I have the same satelite receiver and ran it into different HT receivers, coming out of the satelite receiver (digitally) the should be no difference but our HT receivers will sound different when playing them back. Let's say you were using a Rotel nd I havd a JVC HT receiver. Where the satelite receiver represents a transport and the HT receiver would be equivalent to, or is, the DAC. Any difference from the satelite receiver, even if different brand, would be subtle, but possible depending on lenth and type of digital cable etc. but there should be a big difference in sound between a Rotel and JVC receiver playing the same signal.

* I know digital is not digital because my Dishnet audio out worked fine with my processor but whenswitching to a cable box I got no sound. After almost a year of switching boxes, nvestigating and raising hell, I finely learned the processor manufacturer became aware of the problem and it had to be sent in for a fix. Their story was the cable digital is inferior and they had to lower their tolerance. Who knows what the reason is, I was just glad to have it work again.

Hopefully after listening to the analog outs you will see what I'm talking about. If you had several tranports and DAC's, there should be much less of a noticeable difference when using the same DAC on many transports verses the same transport on many DAC's.

[BillyB]

Peruvian, your test makes you as insane as me now and it's in writing for all to see, you claim there is a difference in transports. That's why you didn't hear a night and day difference between a $200.00 player and your $2.5k player, although I too know transports can make a difference, most of the improvements to sound is done in the analog stages of the unit. In order for you to really hear the difference between players you need to use the stereo analog outputs. If someone was going to just use the internal DAC of a HT receiver, I'd agree not to spend much money on a player or just use the DVD player they have but in Carl's case where he will have a quality amp and speakers for stereo listening it would be worth buying just as high of quality CD playback because he would be counting on the players analog interprtation of the music.

Just wanted to say that I tried to say the same thing above but you are more technically versed than me and put it into terms that make sense.CD's obviously start out digital and must be converted to analogue.This is where players start sounding very different as while many say all digital is pretty much the same,analogue certainly isn't.

The biggest difference I have ever heard in my system was upgrading to an Arcam 192T upsampling player.This jump was from the 73T which in itself is quite good.You don't have to spend $1600 to get a good player but I have no regrets.It has 4 Wolfson 7840 DAC's and some very advanced filtering in it and mated very well to my Quad 22L's, which are very equipment sensitive.

I was in a very hotly debated thread on this very subject not too long ago here.My argument then as it is now is that the system as a whole needs to be fairly evenly matched in quality with no glaring weaknesses.Of course budget then becomes the X factor and that is just as big of an issue as the technical merits of equipment in my opinion.It's virtually impossible to separate the 2 and is at the heart of these discussions.
I'm certainly going to argue the merits of my Arcam to the same lengths as someone who says such a player is total overkill and their inexpensive player sounds about the same..Such is life.

[Mr Peabody]

Arcam has one of the best price to performance ratio of any player I've run across The 73t, or whatever,Arcam's entry level, would be enough to show the benefits of good CD playback. They seem to always be on the cutting edge. The Alpha 9 with it's Ring technology was incredible for it's day and would still sound better than players in the $1k range today.

[tkyc]

I guess this post is a little late but Mr Peabody comments seem right on. I agree that there are big differences between budget player, DVD Players, and higher quality units. I have been using an MSB DAC for many years with a variety of players for transports. Originally a Denon CD player and more recently with budget Denon and Cambridge Audio DVD players. I also tried a Marantz CD-5001 CD Player. The Marantz serving as a transport sounded much better that the 2 DVD Players ( really good in fact) and was much quieter, mechanically. I eventually upgraded to a Arcam 73T which produced an improved, more expanded center stage. I am very happy with the $700, 73T and suspect it will out perform most CD Players or DVD players under a grand.

[Wireworm5]

I been progressively upgrading for a few years. So to make my story as brief as I can lets assume that your system has the resolution to hear the difference of players at what ever system developement stage your at.

1st multi-disc cd player- crap, but didn't know 'til upraded to Panasonic Unversal dvd player.

Panasonic dvd player seemed equal to creative Audigy Platinum II computer soundcard with current settings.

Upgraded to Sony DVP-NS 975v instantly notice better sound than Pansonic even before settings were adjusted.

Assumed 975 was better than sound card, then I wired the 975 to both soundcard and receiver so I could switch instantly between the two. I then adjusted soundcard's settings to match the 975 and I could barely tell the difference 'cept I had a soundfield activate on computer.

$49 Magnavox dvd player vs Sony 975 with toslink, almost as good in uncompressed mode. Skipped on discs that Sony would play. Sony has better highs. Difference in sound marginal, price difference significant.

New Sony NS9100ES vs Sony 975- Bass freq. significantly better smoother giving it a warm sound. Reveals more harmonics from instruments and highs don't seem as sharp as 975, but I prefer the sharpness. Upgrade worthwhile only if your seeking elite sound.

Connections for players were all toslink 'cept for soundcard to receiver.

[Mr Peabody]

Wireworm, you stated you used toslink on all your players, all you compared was the players transports. Toslink is digital out. In order to hear a significant difference between players you have to compare their analog outs. Although I believe there is some difference in digital outs, it's not anything compared to the analog outs where the majority of the difference is made in how manufacturers treat the signal and can use better parts.

On the upside you either proved my point that there is some difference between transports or your in the same boat as me, we allow our imaginations to run wild:)

[Wireworm5]

I believe from what I read although I don't fully understand it, that the signal is going through the players dac.There has to be somekind of processing going on in the players even if using digital outs. You know you change a setting in the dvd menu you can hear the difference.
Perhaps its my receiver or that I have the digital outs on in my players. But I always find to my ears that digital sounds way better than analogue with the exception of my soundcard which I can't explain other than I can increase the wave strength with the soundcard.
Maybe its time for a multi-channel pre-amp? That'll be next on my list. :)

[Mr Peabody]

Maybe the digital receive some buffering, jitter control or clocking but it doesn't go through the DAC (Digital to Analog Conversion). The Toslink and coaxial are pure digital. I'm not sure why the digital sounds better unless your receiver has a very good DAC, or if you run it through your computer first, maybe that makes the signals similar. What kind of settings are you talking about?

Just set your receiver to a certain volume and compare the Magnavox to the 9100 using stereo analog out, you should hear night and day difference.

[Wireworm5]

I just done a quick experiment on my new dvd player between analog and digital. Quickly adjusting the volume to try to level match the output levels between the two. And I can't discern which is better, they sound the same to me.
On my player there is a sharp and slow filter in the dvd menu. If you put it on slow it cuts the high freq. over 20 khz. I can hear the change so it's processing the signal.
Oh, and the Magnavox sounded like $49 dollars in analog.

[emorphien]

If you're strictly using it as a transport, there shouldn't really be any [much] differences unless one is a real piece of garbage. If you're using the analog stage in the CD player to connect to your (pre)amp/receiver then it can vary.

[Wireworm5]

I think you missed the point of last post.
My Sony Flagship dvd player should be significantly better in analog than digital (toslink) if it were just operating as a transport with toslink. But when level matched I can't discern a difference. Which means either the dvd player is not as good as me thinks or that its not just a transport when using optical outs. The signal is indeed being processed digitally just not to the analog level of the dac. How it's being processed is probably DAC trade secrets.

[emorphien]

Why would you be using the DAC if the output you're using is digital? I know my CD player has a separate analog and digital stage.

Aside from some companies attempting to shroud their magical dacs in mystery, DAC operation is well published.

[Wireworm5]

I'm not saying it's going through the dac. Your making the arguement that using toslink relegates the player to just a transport. I'm saying the digital signal must be processed by the player and it's not just 0's and 1's coming from a disc. And digital sounds as good as analog signal going through the dac, if not better.


Aside from some companies attempting to shroud their magical dacs in mystery, DAC operation is well published.[/QUOTE]

Is that so?

Well I've just begun trying to understand dacs and what makes one dac better than another. It's pretty technical reading and the answers to question like this are not so easy to find.

[emorphien]

You have no reason to use the DAC (Digital to Analog Convertor) if you're using a digital output on the player. If you intended to use a CD player with an external DAC many would argue there isn't much point in shopping for a CD player with a good internal DAC, just a good transport mechanism and overall build quality.

I'm not saying understanding DACs is easy, signal processing isn't my forte either. I'm just saying that when the data is the binary message from the disk, there can be errors, but the question is how much error? And how does that affect the sound? It's different than when you convert it to an analog signal.

[Wireworm5]

Sure but how much money do I have to spend to get a dac that sounds better than digital?
I know my Yamaha receiver dac is my weakest link, but a high quality multi-channel pre-amp or dac is not cheap.
I think I'll just be an advocate for digital is better, until proven wrong. :)

[Mr Peabody]

You are not listening to digital. The digital is being converted to analog by your receiver's internal DAC. I wouldn't think you'd have to spend much to sound better than your receiver's DAC but you say it sounds as good as your Sony's internal DAC which is somewhat surprising. But CD playback isn't always given care when throwing it in a DVD player.

[emorphien]

Yup, it all winds up analog eventually because your speakers don't understand a digital signal. The DAC is either in the player, your receiver/preamp or somewhere in between (standalone DAC). DAC quality varies, as does DAC implementation. The differences between some DACs can be subtle if not completely below human perception, speakers and room acoustics are "more important" but a better DAC some feel is another important step in upgrading your sound reproduction quality. Depends on what you've got, your ears and the rest of your system. It's very much YMMV.

I've heard bad ones and I've heard good ones, but it wouldn't be the first thing I'd rush to upgrade unless i had a really old or low quality CD player. Sometimes how they handle the signal after the DAC is even more important than what exact DAC they've used.

[Wireworm5]

I'm going to try another experiment soon. I can play the same copied disc in my old Sony and New Sony at the same time since they work off the same remote and see if I can discern for certain that the new Sony is actually better digitally than the old when level matched.
My theory is that the new player samples the signal a couple times, upconverts in to 24-bit, and possibly converts it to dsd. But I read that it has to be converted to pcm because of distortion issues. Like I said before I don't fully understand the process.
Anyways it could be just the increased gain of the my new player as to why I perceive it being better. I'll let you know.

[jlamo]

I have been upgrade my dvd player several time from Samsung, Sony and finally Denon 3930. The most different from this upgrade is the video processing the sound is no much different as transport (digital) or analog output.

It is very different with CD player upgrade. I had used CEC 3300 for dedicated CDP and the sound was improve especially the soundstage and sonic compare with Denon or sony. Recently, I upgrade with CEC TL51XR belt drive CD player. This transport upgrade from magnetic to belt drive is major upgrade and it is imporve my system significantly for analog stage.

Last week, I just upgrade my CDP interconnect cable from AudioQuest US$70 to Wireworld Eclipse US$495. The treble and vocal improve a lot. I can tell the different from the first minute althought many people said upgrade the interconnect is not make any different.

Every upgrade from source, speaker, preamp, amp, interconnect cable even power cord/powerconditioner should improve your system noticeable. We just need wise in the upgrade as the improvement compare with dollar value (worth it or not).

[Mr Peabody]

JLamo, welcome to the board. It's good to have some one else around who can hear differences between gear and some upgrades. I saw you use CEC and B&W, what amp do you have?

[jlamo]

Mr. Peabody, I am using Rotel Pre amp 1068 and Rotel Amp 1075