[iriverdude]

Are yout outputting digital audio from your ipod though? My DAP has optical output, and can playback FLAC, so doing comparisons between the CD and DAP should be identical, as both are plugged into a DAC.

 

[krmathis]

They sure will make a difference!
The source is by many ranked as the most important component in the system, and few CD players sound the same. $2,000 or not...

 

[martini1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by radiohlite /img/forum/go_quote.gif if you have a decent amp and cans, will your source make THAT MUCH of a difference? i'm talking about high-end sources obviously. you know, the "this $2000 cd player is better etc... than THAT $2000 cd player". it might be a stupid question, but i'm really looking for an answer after reading the vintage PCDP reviews. i mean, really???

Set aside design, build quality, etc. I think the DAC is more important. I am doing mostly lossless with the V-DAC and I love it. However I am still interesting in getting a sacd player.

If you are into playing all kinds of discs such as SHM, Blu Spec, SACD, DVD-A, LPCD, HDCD, XRCD, etc etc. Having a player gives u that. Playing with files gives u the power to do unlimited playlists and finding songs is easy as a breeze. U can lock ur limited edition CDs away and never have to worry about scratching them.

 

[pcf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif They sure will make a difference! The source is by many ranked as the most important component in the system, and few CD players sound the same. $2,000 or not...

Hi Krmathis,

Not sure if that's what I experenced though. I feel that these days budget cd players are so good that you have to pay so much more to make small improvement. To me, changing headphones and speakers makes by far the the biggest difference to my ears. Followed by amplication. My amps and speakers costs quite a few times more than my digital source but I am happy with it and don't feel the need to spend more on the front end.

-Paul

 

[greggf]

After spending a lot of time with a $500 Onkyo 7555 cd player that I loved dearly, and then listening to a bunch of $1500-$5000 cd players and settling on a Marantz SA-11S2, I can safely say that:

1) No two cd players sound the same. If you think they do, go back and listen some more.

2) Expensive machines usually - usually! - sound better (more detailed, more refined, more dynamic, better bass and bass definition) than cheaper ones. Larger power supplies, the design of the output stages, isolation and vibration control, transport design, and so on, all affect the quality of the sound and all cost $$$.

3) Mass market DVD players used as cd players sound like s***.

4) You need to "taste" cd players the way you would lollipops, and find your best "flavor" or sonic signature, because they are all uniquely voiced.

5) The $$$ required to get these last ounces of quality out of a cd player are, for the average person, probably not worth it!

That's why they're referred to as "average people." And I don't say that as a knock. I think that they probably are happier than those driven by perfectionism.

I also think that they probably aren't hanging around here...........

 

[memepool]

Have to agree with greggf mostly. A good modern DAC with a computer or DVD transport will equal most modern budget CD players. Largely because these CD players are using DVD transports anyway in my opinion, and bespoke CD transports arn't really made anymore.
It's only when you listen to a top of the line vintage machine with a dedicated CD transport, like one of the Philips swing arm generations, or something like a Teac Esoteric that you realise what CD is / was capable of as a format.

So when you read about vintage PCDPs like the Sony DZ-555, believe the hype. These were Sony's statement PCDP from the peak of the technology. They sound better than any Ipod or mp3 player I've ever heard. Then again the Sony WM-D direct drive cassette walkmans do too.

What I'm saying is that with CD or even the humble cassette, there are years of development of some of the most talented engineers and designers of their day, in a time when Hi-Fi equipment was their companies most important product, not some niche sideline to videogames the way it is today.

With DACs these days you are often talking about technology which was primarily developed to get sound out of mobile phones, which is being tweaked on a small scale by enthusiasts for music purposes. This is one of the reasons why NOS DACs are so popular. The chips were actually designed 20 years ago just for CD playback. No wonder they still sound good.

 

[martini1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Have to agree with greggf mostly. A good modern DAC with a computer or DVD transport will equal most modern budget CD players. Largely because these CD players are using DVD transports anyway in my opinion, and bespoke CD transports arn't really made anymore. It's only when you listen to a top of the line vintage machine with a dedicated CD transport, like one of the Philips swing arm generations, or something like a Teac Esoteric that you realise what CD is / was capable of as a format. So when you read about vintage PCDPs like the Sony DZ-555, believe the hype. These were Sony's statement PCDP from the peak of the technology. They sound better than any Ipod or mp3 player I've ever heard. Then again the Sony WM-D direct drive cassette walkmans do too. What I'm saying is that with CD or even the humble cassette, there are years of development of some of the most talented engineers and designers of their day, in a time when Hi-Fi equipment was their companies most important product, not some niche sideline to videogames the way it is today. With DACs these days you are often talking about technology which was primarily developed to get sound out of mobile phones, which is being tweaked on a small scale by enthusiasts for music purposes. This is one of the reasons why NOS DACs are so popular. The chips were actually designed 20 years ago just for CD playback. No wonder they still sound good.

So are you saying the affordable good quality CD sound is extincted today?

So how much should one spend to really get that good quality sound?

 

[keyid]

CDP Transports seems to make a huge difference. I recently got a mint sony dvp-s7000 ($60!) and to me its a total change in sound compared to my old denon dvd-1710. Both using coax out.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by martini1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So are you saying the affordable good quality CD sound is extincted today? So how much should one spend to really get that good quality sound?

No I'm saying that when you listen to even a pretty decent modern CD player, say 1000UKP compared to a computer or DVD player running a really good DAC then the differences arn't that marked at all, often because the internal components will be broady the same, which leads many people who make such a comparison, to say well why bother with CD then? as a computer based system is just as good and more convenient.
In my experience, to really hear stunning sound quality from CD, which will compete with a decent analogue source and trounce the average computer audio set-up, you need to spend silly money or else find a high-end vintage machine in good order.
I think vintage machines offer good value as the top of the line ones, even examples from the 1980s like the Marantz CD12, can still more than hold their own against anything made today, representing in many ways the peak of the technology.

 

[zotjen]

greggf, how much improvement do you feel your current CDP is over the Onkyo? You mentioned listening to a bunch of more expensive players. After hearing them is there anything in particular you think the Onkyo is missing or lacking, or do the higher end CDPs just do certain things a little bit better? As a current Onkyo owner (who also loves it) I'm curious.

 

[greggf]

It's a slight but noticeable improvement, not just a change in flavor. The Marantz presents more detail, more shadings of sound, and more of the ambiance (sp?) of the recordings.

At first listen, the Onkyo sounds better! - the sound more organic, the flow better. Longer listening makes it clear that your brain (well, mine anyway)has to get used to the more detailed and information-filled presentation of other machines. Then the Onkyo sounds mildly "burred" or fuzzy in comparison. But the more meaty Onkyo sound is still pleasant and comfortable and fun.

I found the same was as true of the base Esoteric cdp as it was the Marantz, when it came to comparisons with the Onkyo. I just don't care as much for the Eso's more metallic or crystalline sound.

This is my second pass at upgrading from the Onkyo. A year ago, I posted about how much better the same Marantz and Esoteric were. But then, just a few days later, I ran back to the Onkyo for a year because of its comfy sound signature. So these things are all subjective and VERY close and hard to discern, unlike with headphone changes. And a "better-sounding" cdp may not necessarily be the same as "the one you want to listen to daily."

Is it easier to hear upgrades in cdp, or in headphone amp? I'd like to know. I'm not sure, myself. But the improvements are there............if you want to pursue them.

(Meant to mention, I've had, in the past, up-level Marantz cdps, one of those top-loading Sony SACD players (not the 5k one, the 3k one), the Sonic Frontiers tubed SFCD-1, an Arcam FMJ CD33, and a Classe cdp10, I think it was called, but these may or may not be relevant to what's on the market now.)

 

[split_brain]

Very much so. More R&D goes into quality CD players and there structure makes them much quieter than the PC.
But, if you're looking for versatility PC is the way to go. For dedicated music listening definitely a CDP is superior.

 

[Valens7]

In my experience, the source makes a bigger difference to SQ than any other part of the component chain, short of the headphones. The source is not to be confused with the transport mind you.

 

[t/sound]

I would take a step back and start at the material on the disk.
I find great variances in Sacd quality listening from Marantz sa11 to ME 24 pre out to 701 depending on the label and recording quality. The same goes for cd played on the above system, being vastly inferior to sacd in general.
However, ripping cd to apple lossless, then playing from Touch to Wadia i transport/stereovox vx2 to Bel Canto 2 mod to Me 24 pre Out to 701 , the sound quality of plain cd is much better than system 1.
On some well recorded cd material the quality approach sacd system 1 sound. Some of my well recorded Sacd's ripped to Touch and through Bel Canto, I cant tel the difference with Sacd sound. Digital out from Marantz to Bel canto gives better sound but not as good as from itransport.
Conclusions :
1)Bad quality recorded cd and sacd even on a better one box mashine, no miracle cure.
2)Cd quality from a far better 1 box mashine needs a much less expensive but better external dac to improve.
3) Itransport better than Marantz transport.
4) We need digital out on Sacd format and universal external dacs to improve even furter.

Comments?

 

[manofmathematics]

I believe that the source is a very critical part of one's system and should be choosen with care. Please read...care, not price. Trying different sources and different approaches to find a solid match for your other equipment and your personal tastes is always a great idea.

I'm not particularly sold on any more recent players. I tried out quite a few different players and still prefer a very old school CAL Aria with tube output over many lastest and greatest in the under $2000 price range. Of course, I like a smooth, warm sound and am willing to sacrifice detail to achieve my preference.

If detail is what you like, then I most certainly feel that anything that spins going into a good DAC is the way to go. I'm still very fond of the Benchmark DAC1, and find it's performance with any transport that my father and I have tried to be more than acceptable.