Tuner better than CD player?

[GeoffW]

I'm currently using a relatively cheap setup in my bedroom consisting of a sony cd3000 plugged into the headphone jack of a yamaha 5140 receiver. It's a budget HT receiver from a few years ago. Not fantastic, but not that bad either. I'm comparing two sources: 1) using the receiver's FM tuner, and 2) using a CD player plugged into a digital optical input of the receiver. The distortion ratings for the amp are .04 THD, and and the stereo tuner is .3 THD. From these numbers, it would seem that the cd-optical is a much cleaner path, but I'm finding that the tuner sounds better than the cd player. It's quite good. Damn good, actually. Smooth, rich, and luxurious. Lots of detail, dynamics, soundstage, transients, etc. The cd player sounds good too, but somewhat sterile and thin in comparison (BTW, I'm listening mostly to classical and jazz). I get similar results if I connect the cd player to the receiver's analog inputs. I'm at loss to explain it, but my current theory is that those FM stations must have excellent equipment, and even though the audio path is not as clean as the CD-optical path, a lot of that quality somehow survives the FM transmission. Any thoughts?

 

[Sol_Zhen]

Specifically, what CD player is it?

 

[GeoffW]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sol_Zhen Specifically, what CD player is it?

I've used two players with the same results, an old toshiba 3109 dvd player, and my toshiba laptop. I wouldn't think the player would matter in the digital-optical setup (they would use the DAC in the receiver). But I get similar results when hooking them up via analog, which doesn't use the receiver DAC.

Also I forgot to mention, I'm using a Terk amplified FM antennae.

 

[Sol_Zhen]

Unless you have a particularly good FM station nearby, this is odd.

*waits for the more knowledgeable to respond*

 

[TravelLite]

This "phenomena" has actually been mentioned more than once.

One possible explanation is that the dynamic range compression used by FM broadcasters may appeal to some listeners when heard on certain gear.
Quote:

Compression is a technique used widely by radio stations to give the impression of loudness. Compression makes quiet passages in the audio signal louder. This raises the average volume range, so that overall it gives the impression of being louder. Compression results in a reduction to the dynamic range of the music - there is less difference between passages of music which originally would have been very quiet or very loud. HTLM source

Quote:

On FM stations, because the signal is analogue, this compression does not cause severe problems to the audio quality. All it does is make the sound more punchy and louder. Proponents of audio processing say that this sound is more entertaining than an uncompressed station while others intensely dislike this sound. HTML source

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoffW It's quite good. Damn good, actually. Smooth, rich, and luxurious. Lots of detail, dynamics, soundstage, transients, etc.

Modern multiband compression (versus wideband) could account for GeoffW's above description of FM radio.
Quote:

Consider the example of a flute player accompanied by a drummer. The drum hits would cause a wideband compressor to reduce overall level, and the audible result would be the flute drastically changing in level on each drum hit. A more sophisticated approach uses multiple compressors, with each one processing a specific band of audio frequencies. This "multiband" processing can be two bands (low and high frequencies), three bands (low, mid, and high frequencies), or up to five bands, with diminishing advantages beyond this. Using a multiband processor, since they appear in different parts of the audio spectrum, the drums and the flute would each get their own compressor, and thus would be optimized individually. PDF source

Well, that's my "theory" anyway, LOL.

TravelLite

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Maybe because it's analog?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dusty Chalk Maybe because it's analog?

You may be right with this. Given that in the radio stations the music is predominantly played from digital sources, this supports the theory that analog distortions (and dynamics compression) can sound beautiful. I often had the same feeling when I switched from the pure, coolish CD sound to my Hitachi tuner with its warmer sound – which wasn't too clean, but appeared to be richer anyhow.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoffW I've used two players with the same results, an old toshiba 3109 dvd player, and my toshiba laptop. I wouldn't think the player would matter in the digital-optical setup (they would use the DAC in the receiver). But I get similar results when hooking them up via analog, which doesn't use the receiver DAC.

Don't underestimate the sonic impact of CD transports!

 

[GeoffW]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ You may be right with this. Given that in the radio stations the music is predominantly played from digital sources, this supports the theory that analog distortions (and dynamics compression) can sound beautiful. I often had the same feeling when I switched from the pure, coolish CD sound to my Hitachi tuner with its warmer sound – which wasn't too clean, but appeared to be richer anyhow.

It's more than just warmth, IMO. There's more "presence" to the music - it just seems more alive and enjoyable. You may be right about the euphonic distortions, but there seems to actually be more detail, even though I know there can't be. Imaging and soundstage, and "sense of space" are better too, IMO.

Anyway, the tuner has become my source of choice. It's great late at night when there are no commercials. It also introduces me to new music.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoffW ... there seems to actually be more detail, even though I know there can't be. Imaging and soundstage, and "sense of space" are better too, IMO.

So you could have been right in turn about the better equipment in the radio stations. Again: don't understimate the sonic impact of transports!

Quote:

Anyway, the tuner has become my source of choice. It's great late at night when there are no commercials. It also introduces me to new music.

I really envy you. There were times I also enjoyed listening to the radio, to inform about new music. But nowadays in my part of the world there's barely any of the new music I'd like to hear broadcasted, not even late at night. Time to go to bed now...

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by JaZZ You may be right with this. Given that in the radio stations the music is predominantly played from digital sources, this supports the theory that analog distortions (and dynamics compression) can sound beautiful. I often had the same feeling when I switched from the pure, coolish CD sound to my Hitachi tuner with its warmer sound – which wasn't too clean, but appeared to be richer anyhow.

Actually, I was thinking that since it was a classical station, that the sources might be analog, no?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dusty Chalk Actually, I was thinking that since it was a classical station, that the sources might be analog, no?

I really don't know much about that in your country, just assumed it might be similar as in mine.

JaZZ

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoffW I've used two players with the same results, an old toshiba 3109 dvd player, and my toshiba laptop. I wouldn't think the player would matter in the digital-optical setup (they would use the DAC in the receiver). But I get similar results when hooking them up via analog, which doesn't use the receiver DAC. Also I forgot to mention, I'm using a Terk amplified FM antennae.

It make sense that you are getting the same results with two players. Because of your connection (Optical) you are only using the players as transports and you are using the DAC's in the reciver. You may want to hook the players up via analog inputs to the receiver to see if you like the internal DAC's better.

That being said, I like the sound from our local NPR station very much although I would not say it is better than the quality I hear from my CD sources (at least the Philips and Sony 333).

 

[Orpheus]

Quote:

Lots of detail, dynamics, soundstage, transients, etc.

well.......... are you SURE that you are describing your results with the correct terms? cause i can tell you, unless if your CD player is worse than the worst that could ever be bought at wal-mart.... there is LESS measurable "detail," "dynamics," and "transients."

what you probably mean is that your radio just "sounds" better. and that might be true to you.

....but... more detail? no way. more dynamics?--hell no! ...radio is HEAVILY compressed. not even close to a CD's dynamic range.

.......but, the phenomenon you are describing is similar to something a vinyl-lover experiences. the combination of distortion and high-frequency roll-off, smaller dynamic range, and the addition of pleasing artifacts and noise can produce something that you find better than CD sound. yes, your radio (or vinyl) can sound smoother... but that's not the result of more detail and dynamics but of the exact opposite.

anyway... try buying a turntable. if you find your radio sounds better, it's very likely you'd like vinyl too. i'm trying to buy one myself.... seems like fun.

 

[GeoffW]

Quote:

Originally posted by morphsci IYou may want to hook the players up via analog inputs to the receiver to see if you like the internal DAC's better.

Yes, I tried this. Using the toshiba 3109, it sounds about the same as the receiver DAC. Using the laptop in analog mode, it sounds worse (although the laptop sounds fairly good directly from it's headphone jack).

Quote:

That being said, I like the sound from our local NPR station very much although I would not say it is better than the quality I hear from my CD sources (at least the Philips and Sony 333). [/B]

I'll try to snoop around online, or call them, and find out what equipment they're using.