Need for CD player (revisited)

[Mr Peabody]

Mr...... Anderson, my post was not meant to be a serious reply, you need to lighten up.

I am, interested, in audiophile playback. I have my doubts that computer digital playback would satisfy me. It has been my experience that all digital is not the same. Transports can make a difference as well as other links along the chain. If one has to spend money on a chain of gadgets to come close to good sound from a computer, I'd just as soon buy the player and get it over with.

The bottomline, IN MY OPINION, is dinking around with computer when I want to listen to music is a royal pain. But, If I ever should happen to change my mind Mr. Anderson you'd be the one I'd consult.

Another thing to add fuel to the fire, I can usually tell by listening if a disc is burned or not. The only discs I've heard that I couldn't tell without looking is some a friend recorded from a Phillips stand alone CD recorder. This is more doubt in my mind that computer could get the job done.

I also want to clarify by saying I'm not talking about getting a computer to sound as good as a A/V receiver, I was using a Krell 280cd, and now use an Audio Note DAC with an EAD transport.

[Rock789]

Mr Peabody, the burned cd's, were they direct copies or were they burned from some form of compressed file? if it was a direct copy, you should not hear a difference... unless the burner did a horrible job and burnt many errors, then you would hear odd beebs and such...

to those of you talking about hard disks and backing up stuff... why not just use a raid setup? then it is automatically backed up...

[Mr Peabody]

Some were direct copies and others I can't be certain. My first clue when listening is the highs aren't as smooth as he original and the bass response is usually a dead give away. I can't explain in words the difference but the response is not the same.

[royphil345]

Yes, I've heard a slight difference in burned copies too. Blank disks and burners do seem to have improved quite a bit since I've done a comparison. CD players seem to read CD-R better now. And I've learned to rip and burn with more attention to quality. Would be interesting to try the comparison again.

[SlumpBuster]

I will never use $30 DVD player as a transport. I never got to try it with my Marantz since I've sold my Rotel, but when I plugged my Zenith DVD player and my Yamaha CDP to my Rotel with optical cables, the different in SQ was very obvious. I used to think like you, but not no more.

JRA

I don't think that way. Actually I agree with you. Perhaps I should be more precise. I don't mean a $30 wal-mart dvd player, but a solid cd player off ebay. There are lots of top notch players to be had for under $50 that retailed for 10-20 times that amount 4 or 5 years ago.

Frankly anyone hooking up a $30 DVD player as a transport is simply trying to be difficult.

This is what I use. It retailed for $600 in 2001 and is on ebay for $20 right now. Spend the $580 you save on an outboard DAC and you've got quite a potent combination.
http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/cd-re...2_2740crx.aspx (the bad reviews are wholly unwarranted IMNSHO.

http://cgi.ebay.com/SONY-RCD-W1-CD-R...QQcmdZViewItem

[jrhymeammo]

One kid stealing music online that are 128kbps, then burns it on to a CD. His friend burns that CD , then rips it on to his PC at 128kbps.. If it continues like that, wouldnt SQ be absolutely horrible?

Slumpy,

I buy stuff all the time without hearing it first. Actually everything I own except for my sub and TT(only) has been purchased without hearing it... From what I've learned on this site, SONY makes pretty damn good transports, so your advice sounds pretty good. But I wouldnt know for sure...

JRA

[Rock789]

perhaps the issue here with burnned cd's is how the program "rips" the cd...

I haven't used any newer programs, but CloneCD was susposed to do a disk copy...
the burned disk should be a an exact copy of the original... no ripping, then reencoding...

eg... 1001001001 = 1001001001 with clone cd...
rather than ripping 1001001001 -> some other code then reencoding while burning a cd and hoping to get the same 1001001001 but possibly getting 1100110011001...

what programs are you guys using? and are you using an actual copy, or are you ripping first?

[Dusty Chalk]

Actually, it's much more complicated than that. The main issues have to do with error checking, redundancy, and the mapping of bad blocks on the CD (yes, CD's have bad blocks just like hard drives do, and just like floppies did).

[Mike Anderson]

I am, interested, in audiophile playback. I have my doubts that computer digital playback would satisfy me.

Well, have you ever heard a decent computer setup -- something with a nice DAC that's separate from the computer?

If one has to spend money on a chain of gadgets to come close to good sound from a computer, I'd just as soon buy the player and get it over with.

But my main point is that you get better quality for the $$ if you go the computer route. You have to buy some gadget or another, what's the difference between buying a gadget and buying a CD player?

Another thing to add fuel to the fire, I can usually tell by listening if a disc is burned or not. The only discs I've heard that I couldn't tell without looking is some a friend recorded from a Phillips stand alone CD recorder. This is more doubt in my mind that computer could get the job done.

I don't understand what this has to do with computers getting good audio. Nothing in the process involves burning disks.

As far as burning disks goes, if you do it right, you shouldn't hear a lick of difference. You can prove it by comparing the digital files you get -- bit for bit, they should be the same. If they aren't, your burner is making errors. That can be fixed with the right setup, but the point is that there's nothing inherently inferior about it.

I also want to clarify by saying I'm not talking about getting a computer to sound as good as a A/V receiver, I was using a Krell 280cd, and now use an Audio Note DAC with an EAD transport.

Right. I guarantee you, you can get high-quality, audiophile sound from a computer.

Look, you can use your Audio Note DAC with the computer. The computer will deliver a bit-perfect digital signal to it, as long as you set it up right. Please tell me exactly how you think the computer is going to degrade the sound in such a setup?

[basite]

yes i agreed that pc's can give good sound,

but still, i'm going to say something.
here goes nothing,
i still prefer the cdp, the pc cd station refuses duty sometimes, and my pc can be noisy, and i don't feel like buying new fans, and a new power supply, and a new cd station. i already have the nice pc case, which is built significantly better then standard cases, it made my pc quieter, but stil not quiet enough to play cd's undisturbed.

[Dusty Chalk]

Mike,

You do realize that some people turn off the LCD displays on their CD players because they believe it dirties up the sound, right? Think how much extra RF crap the computer is going to generate. The minimalism contingent believe in having exactly enough equipment to play their CD's, and no more.

Me, I do it just for the convenience factor -- I hate waiting for my computer to boot up.

That said, I usually wait for my amps to warm up, so I'm a bit of a hypocrite.

[Mike Anderson]

You do realize that some people turn off the LCD displays on their CD players because they believe it dirties up the sound, right? Think how much extra RF crap the computer is going to generate. The minimalism contingent believe in having exactly enough equipment to play their CD's, and no more.

But the whole point of the discussion above is that you can get the signal-generation part of the process as far away from the computer as you like. Basically, all the computer is doing is storing the files, managing them, and sending the files off to another component where the digital signal gets generated (in my case, more than 20 feet from where the computer sits).

There's absolutely no way the computer can affect the sound in this case.

[Daedilus]

Wow.. this is an ugly argument ...

I see both sides in this, Obviously an audiophile will never stoop to the depths of digital playback... while technophiles will swear with their dying breath that reproduction can be every bit as good as the vinyl recording...

I can appreciate the merits of both, but will add this into the mix... Not every moment of every day is an "audiophile moment", The Christmas party, burgers and beer in the backyard, a little background music while you work on a report, etc.

Many (most) of today's integrated systems have multizone capability with multiple power amps controlling whole house audio. For these circumstances either PC based or CD based music would perform equally well at providing ambient sound.

Into that i will throw in the fact that people are stupid. Vastly, unbelievably, immeasurably stupid, capable of doing things more incomprehensible and irrational than words allow for. For this reason alone, the 5 disc CD carousel is good, fast, cheap and easy.

I ALWAYS put one into my systems, even if i have a DVD carousel, simply because i can set the system configuration to have it always on, in an endless shuffle, of their 5 favorite discs, so that at any time, all they need to do is walk to the wall of the room and turn up the volume, like they would a switch, to have music in any room.

More technical clients get music servers, which i usually use Elan analog > cat 5 >back to analog devices for, if i don't have a local machine, coupled with wireless mouse/keyboard combos for remote system control...or the Elan Via DJ system. I have also used infrared IR modules in the PCs learned into system remotes.

I can appreciate the nuances of a plucked string vibrating the fur on my... ... chest.. as much as the next guy, but life isn't a concert, and even when I'm not "listening to music" I'm listening to music. For that reason i will stand in the defense of CD players as a valued member of the home theater system, and the music server as well. 97% of the population will never be able to tell mid quality sound from high quality sound anyway, so the point is pretty much moot.

[Mr Peabody]

Mike, I have compared transports in a Denon, Krell, EAD and a cheezy TDK recorder and have heard a difference, enough to be convinced the transport is important to SQ. I doubt if a PC would have a CD drive as good as any of the above except maybe the TDK. Also, I have experienced compatibility problems between cable box and HT processor and know of other equipment digital compatibility issues, so I'm also convinced that all digital signals are not identical the way you say.

I do have a friend who has tried several transports and says he cannot hear a difference BUT he has an expensive Levinson DAC that has some type of time alignment/buffer built in which I believe has something to do with clocking. So if this type of circuitry can be in the chain after the PC maybe it can get close.

[Mr Peabody]

Daelius, you have some valid points.

[jrhymeammo]

I buy stuff all the time without hearing it first. Actually everything I own except for my sub and TT(only) has been purchased without hearing it...
JRA

opps. I meant I heard them before making my purchase..

Dalieus,
What you said about Audiophile moments is absolutely true. For that purpose, I cannot disagree...

[Mike Anderson]

Mike, I have compared transports in a Denon, Krell, EAD and a cheezy TDK recorder and have heard a difference, enough to be convinced the transport is important to SQ. I doubt if a PC would have a CD drive as good as any of the above except maybe the TDK.

I fully agree that transports are important. But you have to look at what makes a high quality transport give better sound -- then you can see why a computer can do just as well as a high quality transport for less money.

The main point is that when I put a CD into my computer for ripping, it can take all the time in the world to extract the audio data. That's really what gives you a superior ability to read the CD.

Good ripping software, such as Exact Audio Copy, makes multiple reads from the CD to ensure there are no errors. It can do this because you are not trying to read the data and decode it into audio in real time. So the computer can take its own sweet time to read the CD and check for errors.

Once the CD is ripped, the audio files are sitting there on your hard drive in a perfect bit-for-bit copy, and they can be transferred over a network with every single bit intact.

At that point, the *only* factor that can possibly affect the sound is jitter, and you can take care of that with the DAC you use.

Also, I have experienced compatibility problems between cable box and HT processor and know of other equipment digital compatibility issues, so I'm also convinced that all digital signals are not identical the way you say.

I didn't simply say that "all digital signals are identical". But there are ways to transfer a digital signal so that it stays unchanged. All it takes is the right knowledge and technology, neither of which are terribly expensive at this point.

I do have a friend who has tried several transports and says he cannot hear a difference BUT he has an expensive Levinson DAC that has some type of time alignment/buffer built in which I believe has something to do with clocking. So if this type of circuitry can be in the chain after the PC maybe it can get close.

You're talking about jitter, which is a clocking problem. One solution to jitter is to store the signal in a buffer and reclock it from scratch. I know the Lavry DAC does that, and perhaps that's what you're talking about with the Levinson.

But DAC technology is improving very, very rapidly. These days you don't have to spend thousands of dollars on a DAC to eliminate jitter (or at least reduce it to an inaudible level).

[Mike Anderson]

I doubt if a PC would have a CD drive as good as any of the above except maybe the TDK.

By the way, I have to point out something: In your first post in this thread, you already admitted that you "are not up on all the computer to audio marriage stuff".

So you have to admit that all your doubts are based solely on your suspicions and doubts -- not actual experience in dealing with computer-based audio. Is that an accurate statement?

Have you ever heard a well-done computer-based system running into a high quality DAC? If not, what is the basis for your opinion?

[Dusty Chalk]

At that point, the *only* factor that can possibly affect the sound is jitter, and you can take care of that with the DAC you use.

No, actually the transport is important too. You can make a DAC such that it is less affected by jitter, but never completely immune.

That said, there's a case to be argued that a well-designed computer can have less jitter than a CD transport (think about buffering).

So Mr. Peab -- I recommend trying to hear a well set up computer system. I disagree with the statement:

I doubt if a PC would have a CD drive as good as any of the above except maybe the TDK.

[Mike Anderson]

No, actually the transport is important too. You can make a DAC such that it is less affected by jitter, but never completely immune.

I'm talking about the signal *after* it leaves the "transport" (which, in a computer setup, isn't what Mr. Peabody is thinking a transport is).

And once jitter is reduced to under 100ps or so, it's inaudible. You just don't have to spend huge bucks on a DAC to get that level of quality these days.

[Century L100]

Wow.. this is an ugly argument ...

Yeah, man...look at what I started!

Bottom line: "Ya pay your money and ya take your pick"!

[2325fan]

i have both a cd player an my computer hooked up to my oldie but goodie rantz 2325 an let me tell u music on my pc omg i hear more than the cd player look into some wireless systems they sound pretty decent too

[musiclover60]

Century L100,

You sure opened a can of worms with this one! I'm not going to go into the merits of cd players vs. computers, but I think you may have answered your own question. You stated that your computer was in your den where you work so I'm assuming that you use your computer for work purposes. Do you really want your work computer to be part of the family stereo? I can see it now, your working away, and one of the kids come in and and ask. "Dad can I run this *****in cd?", or something to that effect. My work computer is also the family computer, and I don't know how often I've had to put aside work while the wife was online or the kids were doing homework.
If you don't have that worry, keep in mind that your computer has only a limited supply of resources (memory, stacks, etc.) and though new computers have quite a bit of resources, new programs use up huge chunks of resources.
Try playing some music while your computer is under load (virus scanning, your multitasking, etc.) and see how it sounds. If everything runs smoothly, that's still an option. If it doesn't, well then maybe you should stick to the cd player.

musiclover60

[Mike Anderson]

^^^ I keep the Slimserver software running on my computer to serve my Squeezebox, and you can run anything else you want, including Photoshop, Wavelab or other demanding applications. And you don't have to touch the computer to play music; somebody else can be working away, and they'd never know the difference.

These days RAM is dirt cheap. If you have a problem, just buy some more.

[avgjoe]

Mike check my PM I sent you but what exactly is the purpose of having the audio signal being produced elsewhere? What exactly is jitter? And for those of us who have a pretty much inaudible pc (thank silentpcreview.com) what steps would we need to take to allow us to use the computer as our main source. I'm almost done ripping my 800+ cd collection onto my computer (WAV). Now I need to get some nice speakers and I assume a USB DAC or would you suggest something different. I hear USB DACs decrease jitter by being more "native" (whatever that means) to the computer.

Also what exactly is the squeezebox and how does it actually work. I understand that it's wifi but is the PCM signal processed at the squeezebox or the computer? What is the point of an external DAC when the squeezebox's output isn't USB but rather through spdif which is supposed to add jitter? Wouldn't that be more "jittery" than the wired option through USB?

In addition slimdevices' transporter, is that just a squeezebox with a really nice DAC or what?

Excuse me for any ignorance. Just trying to learn...