Single CD player vs. changer or DVD

I've heard/seen a number of people state that a single CD player is superior to a CD changer or DVD player. Of course, this is a very general statement. But I'd like to get down to the "nitty gritty" of why this would be the case.

Assuming you're comparing digital players at the same price point AND well received/reviewed, what is it about the single CD player that makes it superior to the CD changer or DVD player?

I'm familiar with the main argument on transport quality. A single CD player leaves a certain amount of "funding room" for a better transport compared to multi-disc players. But... by how much?

Changer: Isn't the design of the motor that spins the disc basically the same? That all you've got on top of this is a rotating platter that puts the disc into place on the spindle? If there's a question of proper alignment (hand placed friction fit versus auto-clamping), wouldn't it be obvious in that the mechanism has to be able to read the tracks--if it's off, it simply won't work right or skip? I know there's also the dampening factor... that the motor mounts should be able to buffer any undue vibration by the motor or from the room. But again, isn't this independent of how the disc got onto the spindle? That a disc changer unit can have good quality motor mounts?

Translation: The digital disc is read by laser and then interpreted into an audio signal--by a DAC (digital audio converter). It can be internal or external. Now, obviously the coded format of a DVD is different from a CD. But programming is programming... anything can be burned into an onboard ROM or EPROM chip. When a DVD is detected, use translation code for DVD; when a CD is detected, use translation code for CD. So... in essence it comes down to the manufacturer using "good code" for the CD. Thus, shouldn't it be inconsequential as to whether the unit supports both DVD and CD or just CD? You could also extend the same principle to MP3's... it's just a different coding format (320kbps supposedly at CD quality). And certainly it seems like the technology exists whereby it can be translated true to form (although I know some people scorn MP3's or FLAC's and stick to full CD). But for now, let's leave the MP3 translation out of the inquiry.


Personal Experience
I have a TOTL single CD/DVD player by Marantz, circa 2005. It's a beautiful unit with smooth, high quality transport. And it sounds great to me. I'm using well respected amplification and speakers, and have tried out a number of good quality CD recordings.

I compared the playback of the Marantz against a Kenwood CD changer and a Sony DVD changer of much lower price points (not the bottom--about middle). On some recordings I could tell differences between the Sony and the Marantz. Subtle, but there... just a little less "presence". I don't know what else to call it. The Kenwood was a different matter. To my ears it sounded almost exactly like the Marantz, except that the bass was a little stronger. Given the Marantz being TOTL, I'd chalk it up to the Kenwood doing a little colorizing. If I wanted a little more bass out of the Marantz for some recordings, I could easily increase the bass control on the amp, by 1 or 2 positions. The quality of the sound still excellent from my experimenting (whereby the Sony turned a little bit muddy at higher volume).

In conclusion, I'd say that the sound quality improvement with the Marantz doesn't justify the cost. Of course, it's a beautifully made unit. Looks great. The drawer action is elegant. But... to my ears, not enough of an improvement to disqualify the others. Now as to personal information, I am approaching 50. My ears have gotten a licking over the years, due to the rigors of life. I've got a very low grade tinnitus going on. My left ear is partially damaged, with some frequencies clipped and the volume just a little less than the right. But I don't notice this unless I'm wearing earphones and turn the right balance down (or listen to a Beatles recording where the left or right channels are periodically insulated from each other). I've been able to tell the difference between great and mediocre speakers, poor and great recordings, crappy and good quality source components.

So... I'm left wondering. Is it simply that my ears aren't truly good enough to perceive the differences between these digital disc players? Or that my equipment isn't "high end" enough to bring out the differences? If the latter, then I guess it really does make sense to always have a balanced system (all about the same quality/grade/cost level). I ran my tests on Canton Ergo Passiv speakers powered by a Sansui AU-719.

Btw, I hope this isn't as controversial as the CD vs. Vinyl argument. I hope this can evoke some very civil discussion to help me find some useful answers that will also benefit others. Thanks.

My personal experiences have always shown differences among CDPs. The largest, among the DVD and BR players I´ve tried againts redbook CDPs. It is the area of my system in which I have changed and experimented the most in the last three years. My system is quite revealing and this plays an important role for me. I also listen mainly to classical music, all instruments are acoustical (no electronic amplification in the musical instruments) and I have a clear memory of the way the real instruments sound. For example, a good test for me is to listen to a solo violin recording in the players I would like to compare.

I have a Denon single play CD player and a number of DVD/CD players, no changers. To my ears, the single play machine is more musical. The DVD players seem to be geared for home theater with accentuated top end and bass. The difference is subtle, but it is there as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding CD changers, there are different types. I don't know how the things work that have a loading capacity of several hundred CDs - never owned one - but I have used the rotating platter type and the type with a 6-CD cartridge. The rotating platter type seems to work well, but I don't like the ado of that huge drawer coming out of the machine. IMHO that's kind of pretentious and not very elegant. Of course this is purely personal opinion and YMMV.

The cartridge type I have used for many years in a car. It was a MacAudio CD changer that I used in Germany. The brand is virtually unheard of in the US, but that changer never gave me any trouble, and being able to access 6 CDs in the trunk via the headunit was great. For home use I had Nakamichi CD changer with a similar cartridge and it gave up the ghost after relatively short use. The cartridge jammed in the changer and I never got it out again. Suffice it to say I was not amused.

In summary, all other things being equal, I don't think I would hear a difference between a good changer and a good single CD player, but for home use I prefer a single CDP.

Regarding DVD players, there is nothing to ad to what you said yourself. If a DVD player has a solid transport mechanism, and a digital output or a DAC that deals well with CDs, there is no reason it should be inferior to a dedicated CDP. I am using a Denon DVD-3000 as my main CDP right now that's connected via TOSLINK to a Denon AVR-3300. Beautiful combo!

Differences between digital sources are far more difficult to hear than most people would have you believe. I recently learned that in tests conducted under scientific conditions (double blind study) test subjects could not tell the difference between a CD and SACD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacd). IMHO this suggests that a lot of perceived differences are purely psychologically based.

Like you, I might not have the most 'audiophile ear', but I generally have a hard time hearing significant differences between digital sources. The one exception to this was when I had a chance to hear the same CDP with different op-amps. I really wasn't expecting to hear much of a difference at all, but the improvement in sound with a different op-amp was remarkable. I had never thought of it before, but unless you use a digital output, there is something happening in your CDP after the DAC. As our experiences with analog signal transmission would lead you to expect, that something matters a great deal. IMHO a lot more than the digital side of things (CDP, DVD) or any mechanical shenanigans (single CDP or changer).

fmueller said:

Regarding DVD players, there is nothing to ad to what you said yourself. If a DVD player has a solid transport mechanism, and a digital output or a DAC that deals well with CDs, there is no reason it should be inferior to a dedicated CDP. I am using a Denon DVD-3000 as my main CDP right now that's connected via TOSLINK to a Denon AVR-3300. Beautiful combo!

Click to expand...

You are simply using the Denon in that situation as a transport. Comparing its sound using its onboard DAC might reveal more about how well, or not, DVD/CD players compare to stand alone units. Of course it would not be inferior to a CD player in that situation. If the CD player has a good transport, you are comparing the same AVR's DAC to itself.

I only state this because I've tried several recent CD/DVD players and none of them have stood up to even my 10 year old Sony CD player as far as two channel CD listening. Of course, your mileage may vary applies..and yours seems to vary from mine...but my ears have heard huge differences in every single player I have. Very noticeable. I'm not talking the semantics of 'night and day' cable changes..each player has a personality all its own.

I've heard some multiple disc players that sound pretty good. A friend of mine has a huge sony 100 disc carousel changer that looks like it should sound pretty bad, given the giant moving merry-go-round of CDs that sits inside it. But it sounds very good. I think Sony CDPs are very underrated.

fmueller said:

Regarding DVD players, there is nothing to ad to what you said yourself. If a DVD player has a solid transport mechanism, and a digital output or a DAC that deals well with CDs, there is no reason it should be inferior to a dedicated CDP. I am using a Denon DVD-3000 as my main CDP right now that's connected via TOSLINK to a Denon AVR-3300. Beautiful combo!

Click to expand...

Actually there's a lot of reasons why the DVD player would sound inferior to one of the better single disc players. This includes the quality of the DAC, the type and quality of the power supply, the quality of the passive electronics parts used in the circuit, the circuit design itself, the type and quality of the chassis, and the list doesn't end there. Little things make a big difference in my experience. Just replacing a pair of RCA sockets on one CD player with a pair of all-copper sockets resulted in a very noticeable improvement in the sound.

Now, although we've been over this a thousand times in other forums, blind A/B tests are highly controversial when it comes to audio, and frankly, some of us (myself included) believe they're practically useless in this area. The way we actually listen and discern differences between different audio components is just about the opposite of how the listening is done in a double blind test, so I personally wouldn't read too much into the test you're referring to. Aside from that, I've heard for myself the differences between cheap DVD/CD players and models up to $1600, and no, they are not small or difficult to hear. I suspect many people who say that haven't heard a really good CD player before.

JohnVF said:

You are simply using the Denon in that situation as a transport. Comparing its sound using its onboard DAC might reveal more about how well, or not, DVD/CD players compare to stand alone units. Of course it would not be inferior to a CD player in that situation. If the CD player has a good transport, you are comparing the same AVR's DAC to itself.

Click to expand...

Agreed with you on all points, but why should I compare the sound using the onboard DAC if I never intend to use the onboard DAC? For me it makes more sense to compare it in the way I actually use it.

The statement generally seen is "single disk CDPs are superior to DVD players". It is not "single disk CDPs are superior to DVPs, unless the DVP has an equally high quality DAC, or you are using a stand-alone DAC, or you are using the DAC in your AVR". The latter would be more correct, but who wants to bother with all those details?

Mr. Lin said:

Actually there's a lot of reasons why the DVD player would sound inferior to one of the better single disc players. This includes the quality of the DAC, the type and quality of the power supply, the quality of the passive electronics parts used in the circuit, the circuit design itself, the type and quality of the chassis, and the list doesn't end there. Little things make a big difference in my experience. Just replacing a pair of RCA sockets on one CD player with a pair of all-copper sockets resulted in a very noticeable improvement in the sound.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in that changes in parts of a digital source like the DAC, power supply, other electronic parts, chassis, and so on, can make a significant difference in the sound the system as a whole will produce.

However, if you make a generalization like CDPs sound inferior - or even just different from DVD players, then you are saying that DVD players use inferior - or different - parts from CDPs. I have never seen any evidence that this is the case. In other words, a digital source with a high quality DAC will sound better than one with a low quality DAC, but who says all CDPs have high quality DACs while DVD players have low quality DACs?

Mr. Lin said:

Now, although we've been over this a thousand times in other forums, blind A/B tests are highly controversial when it comes to audio, and frankly, some of us (myself included) believe they're practically useless in this area.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that it is impractical - if not impossible - to conduct double blind studies in the home environment and use them to base your audio purchasing decisions on the results.

However, when conducted in a laboratory environment, double blind studies are the best scientific evidence we can have to gauge human perception, including hearing. If you don't 'believe' in double blind studies, I am afraid that is a religious question that site rules prevent us from exploring further in this venue.

fmueller said:

I agree with you in that changes in parts of a digital source like the DAC, power supply, other electronic parts, chassis, and so on, can make a significant difference in the sound the system as a whole will produce.

However, if you make a generalization like CDPs sound inferior - or even just different from DVD players, then you are saying that DVD players use inferior - or different - parts from CDPs. I have never seen any evidence that this is the case. In other words, a digital source with a high quality DAC will sound better than one with a low quality DAC, but who says all CDPs have high quality DACs while DVD players have low quality DACs?

Click to expand...

I'm also in agreement with what Mr. Lin said, that superior DAC, power supply, electronic components, chassis, mounts, etc will make a difference if combined together and pitted against a unit with lesser quality parts. But there's nothing to keep a TOTL DVP (CD & DVD media supported) from having similar quality components as a TOTL CDP of similar price point. I think it must come down to the player of choice selected, especially across brands.

Mr. Lin wrote a very detailed comparison of several high end CDP's and found one that worked best for him. But I have to believe that there are some high end DVP's that could have been contenders. Maybe at the very upper end a TOTL CDP will best many TOTL DVP's, but by how much of a difference?

myu701 said:

Mr. Lin wrote a very detailed comparison of several high end CDP's and found one that worked best for him. But I have to believe that there are some high end DVP's that could have been contenders. Maybe at the very upper end a TOTL CDP will best many TOTL DVP's, but by how much of a difference?

Click to expand...

The search for a better sounding piece of gear is very personal. Some people stop at some point because they feel satisfied or unable to go ahead with the costs of improving. Some other people don´t feel satisfied with whatever very good piece of gear they might have. So, if there is a difference, even a very small one, it will be a good motivaton for some people to explore that difference. In my personal case, I feel that improving my already very good sounding Cambridge Audio 640 C V 2 is my main urge in improving my system.

PS: regarding the TOTL DVD possibility, my personal philosophy is to look always for the simplest and best built gear I can afford, in this case, a redbook CDP, but I understand that this is a matter of preferences.

fmueller said:

Agreed with you on all points, but why should I compare the sound using the onboard DAC if I never intend to use the onboard DAC? For me it makes more sense to compare it in the way I actually use it.

The statement generally seen is "single disk CDPs are superior to DVD players". It is not "single disk CDPs are superior to DVPs, unless the DVP has an equally high quality DAC, or you are using a stand-alone DAC, or you are using the DAC in your AVR". The latter would be more correct, but who wants to bother with all those details?



I agree with you in that changes in parts of a digital source like the DAC, power supply, other electronic parts, chassis, and so on, can make a significant difference in the sound the system as a whole will produce.

However, if you make a generalization like CDPs sound inferior - or even just different from DVD players, then you are saying that DVD players use inferior - or different - parts from CDPs. I have never seen any evidence that this is the case. In other words, a digital source with a high quality DAC will sound better than one with a low quality DAC, but who says all CDPs have high quality DACs while DVD players have low quality DACs?



I agree with you that it is impractical - if not impossible - to conduct double blind studies in the home environment and use them to base your audio purchasing decisions on the results.

However, when conducted in a laboratory environment, double blind studies are the best scientific evidence we can have to gauge human perception, including hearing. In this context, double blind studies are only controversial in so far as anybody relying on science and reason will find them convincing. If you don't 'believe' in double blind studies, I am afraid that is a religious question that site rules prevent us from exploring further in this venue.

Click to expand...

CD and DVD are not identically read formats. The basic requirements for both formats are somewhat separate in the same chasis. You either need two different lasers, one for each task, or a laser that can change its focusing requirement. Unless that has changed in recent years, but I don't know that it has. On top of that, you need DAC and output sections who's capability is divided between the two different mediums and their different sampling rates, etc, which while they're both digital are not the same. One DAC can handle both but it is again, lacking in the specialtization of trying to do one as best it can. This is a gross simplification I'm sure but what I'm saying is that you could be buying a jack of all trades, master of none. The output stages also become more complex...are you dealing in stereo only? 5.1 decoding? It might not be a huge difference but it is cost of build being divided among more than one task. I've read elsewhere that the whole CD/DVD idea was consumer driven, for ease of adoption and convenience, not because it was the best idea. CD/DVD players can play CDs just fine...but in my experience it is quite obvious that they are not specialized in one or the other. I always sense that most of them, even stuff in the more high end region, like the NAD master's series universal player I listened to, are beaten by players of a similar cost that only are expected to master one task. It's like receivers vs separates. You may end up with an excellent receiver, but it will always have a hand in compromise simply to fulfill the requirement that everything fit in one space at a given cost. And getting one that does everything well is usually not a cheap proposition.

As to your remarks about comparing players using an outboard DAC in your AVR...you aren't then comparing players. You are comparing transports. The DAC and analog output/power supply is what makes it a player instead of a transport. While there are differences in transports most will agree that they are far less audible, if at all, than the players as a whole. You are comparing the DAC of your AVR, and it's output section to itself when you hook a CD player and DVD player through a digital output. Nothing in that section of the corresponding players gets used at all, so what are you comparing? I never understand why people will spend a fortune on a great DVD player just to hook it up through HDMI to a receiver. Just get a great transport that has had no money spent on an analog output section, and everything spent on the transport.

JohnVF said:

While there are differences in transports most will agree that they are far less audible, if at all, than the players as a whole.

Click to expand...

JohnVF said:

Just get a great transport that has had no money spent on an analog output section, and everything spent on the transport.

Click to expand...

You just said yourself that differences in transport might not be audible at all. Why make a fuss about buying a stand alone transport, when you can pick up a DVD including a transport pretty much anywhere for peanuts :scratch2:

Following your line of reasoning, we should at least be able to agree that for people who use just the transport, it does not matter if they buy a CDP or a DVD player?

fmueller said:

Following your line of reasoning, we should at least be able to agree that for people who use just the transport, it does not matter if they buy a CDP or a DVD player?

Click to expand...

Well, you will have the complexity of two lasers or one that has ability to change focus. So I'd still say get both...but I wouldn't be worried so much about the sound quality as much as I would be the build quality, reliability, and overall solidity of the transport. While I don't think there are the degrees of difference in most lower level transports as I do when comparing whole units, for the purpose of getting the info of the disc, I'd say just get the one with the sturdiest chassis. A solid transport should have less read error. You can spend thousands on a transport if you want..you'll get crazy build quality and all that goes with it, but to what degree that will be important to most people is debatable. I guess all of this is. One person's night and day will be what somebody else really doesn't care about. I know I'm like that with my HD projector. My friend goes on and on about his black levels on his crazy expensive projector and I'm happy if I just see a clear picture on my cheapie Optoma.

But I completely agree that it's not going to be as big of a difference as the difference between using two players as whole units.

One thing to consider about Disc Changers is that there simply is more mechanical complexity. So, similar to cassette decks, they might sound just fine as long as the mechs are working properly.

I have a high quality CDP and DVP, and both sound superior to cheap versions of the formats for stereo listening. I presume this to be a result of excellent system design methodology (in general), including D/A conversion subsystems. The overall package is important from input to output. At any point in this system can a less than high quality component reduce the sound quality in a given system.

I too am approaching 50, and wonder about hearing issues down the road. However, I can still hear what you mentioned as a "muddy" sound quality versus a really good system (or recording) clarity.

guiller said:

my personal philosophy is to look always for the simplest and best built gear I can afford.

Click to expand...

That's an excellent philosophy, but IMHO in the case of redbook CDPs it has a catch. Redbook CDPs today are a single use device that is no longer marketable to the general public in a way that makes economic sense to large manufacturers. This reduces it to a niche market of small scale manufacturers who use the price to position their product in the marketplace, and an audience of audiophiles whose majority equates high price with high quality. In other words, a $2,000 unit is automatically assumed to be far superior to a $200 unit.

On the other hand you have a DVD player/Bluray player market that is fiercely competitive, and produces units in vast numbers. Considering both, the different environments and the economies of scale, it seems questionable if the assumption that 'you get what you paid for' holds true under these unique circumstances.

fmueller said:

In other words, a $2,000 unit is automatically assumed to be far superior to a $200 unit.

Click to expand...

Yes, one has to listen to all potential units before buying them. In my personal case, the 1500+ $ units I´ve auditioned (specifically, the Cambridge Audio 840 and Naim c5x and a few others, a bit less impressive than these two) were far beyond the 600 $ players I compared them to in terms of sound quality. So, I agree that one cannot assume that the statement is true automatically, but have not found concrete counterxamples in my limited research so far.

fmueller said:

That's an excellent philosophy, but IMHO in the case of redbook CDPs it has a catch. Redbook CDPs today are a single use device that is no longer marketable to the general public in a way that makes economic sense to large manufacturers. This reduces it to a niche market of small scale manufacturers who use the price to position their product in the marketplace, and an audience of audiophiles whose majority equates high price with high quality. In other words, a $2,000 unit is automatically assumed to be far superior to a $200 unit.

On the other hand you have a DVD player/Bluray player market that is fiercely competitive, and produces units in vast numbers. Considering both, the different environments and the economies of scale, it seems questionable if the assumption that 'you get what you paid for' holds true under these unique circumstances.

Click to expand...

What you are saying makes sense from a logic standpoint but it hasn't panned out for me, at least not at the price levels you're talking about, personally, from an experiential one. It has happened to some extent between a mid-level unit today and one from 10 years ago that I own.

I own a $3k player as well as a $500 Cambridge Audio 640c, and some older lower end units, and a 2 year old Denon DVD player and there is simply no comparison. The high end unit features build quality, especially in the key areas of output and power supply, plus an insanely built transport, that the Cambridge unit and Denon DVD/CD player simply can't approach. Economies of scale might be impacting the price, but they are not similar units from a build quality standpoint, by any means. The Marantz player weighs 35lbs, has a double layered copper shielded chassis, discrete output (no opamps), much higher quality components from the copper shielded transformer on down, and many many more advancements over the DVD player. The DVD player I can pick up with two fingers (it was roughly a $200 unit). I need both hands for the Marantz. The Cambridge is well built, too, but not to the same extent...and it doesn't sound as good. There is less difference between the Cambridge CD player's sound and the Denon than there is between the Cambridge and the Marantz. So maybe the economies of scale are hitting the lower end stand alone CD player more than the higher end unit, as it has to hit a budget where the other one has a more cost-is-no-object approach, and would be expensive regardless. It is telling to me that my 10 year old Sony CD player sounds better, and cost less, than the Cambridge from 2008. Market scale certainly could account for that.

I think a very nice changer could be made, but the market for them was/is very different. Audiophiles wanted single disc players, so the better units were single discs. At mass market consumer level, I don't know that I've heard much difference between players from the same company at the same time period, at the same price range. But as you go up in price and quality of construction, you tended to see less changers and a focus on single CD units.

JohnVF said:

I think a very nice changer could be made, but the market for them was/is very different. Audiophiles wanted single disc players, so the better units were single discs. At mass market consumer level, I don't know that I've heard much difference between players from the same company at the same time period, at the same price range. But as you go up in price and quality of construction, you tended to see less changers and a focus on single CD units.

Click to expand...

You won't pry my MCD205 changer out of my hands until it's dead and unrepairable. Sound quality is excellent and construction is definately in the 'high end' ballpark. Too bad the MusicBank mechanism is no longer made.

carbonman said:

You won't pry my MCD205 changer out of my hands until it's dead and unrepairable. Sound quality is excellent and construction is definately in the 'high end' ballpark. Too bad the MusicBank mechanism is no longer made.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I should have added 'most' in there. That's a nice CD player.

There's another issue with changers.

I have an older Kenwood 5 disk CD changer, and a newer Pioneer 300 CD changer. I haven't done a critical listen to either, but I can say I don't use either much anymore.

It's just a pain to maintain the 300 disk changer, and it's rare that I know what I want to hear for hours in advance so I don't load up the 5 disk changer much.

I'm looking for a good single disk SACD player sometime soon, vinyl has spoiled me for redbook. Meantime, if I have people over and want to just crank some music, that's a good use for an iTunes playlist.

Alright, audio purists you might hate me or something but I have got to be honest here...on the average I hardly hear a difference between one CD player to another. Maybe from a really badly made entry one or something versus a more mid-fi or high end solution, but mid to mid - rarely. Heck, even mid to high end. I have exclusively used my Technics SL-P770 as I love the controls, looks, and it sounds wonderful. I have a much cheaper JVC CD player, and I wouldn't quite rate it anywhere near the level of the Technics build quality wise but it still sounds nice. Maybe this is controversial thought here, but I think to some degree preconceived notion determines what you think you hear.

My friend has some fancy tube CD player - I don't even remember the brand as I simply used it to test some speakers I was looking at. It all sounded good - but honestly I have heard the source material so much and been to a live concert of it, and I can tell you the only difference are the speakers. One time I used my speakers which I brought with me and they didn't sound hardly different even on totally different equipment. Comparatively, his CD player while heavy and well built was super basic - only buttons for play/pause, stop, next track and previous (Hold to FF/REV). I'd like to have his CD player for the esoteric factor, but realistically I like my Techincs better as I like my jog wheel and all the dedicated buttons. Still I sincerely doubt swapping CD players and changing nothing else but CD players will do much for the sound. I think it would if you saw a cheap plastic CD player as Player A and then an esoteric player with a polished aluminum face and gorgeous lighting as Player B - Player B would sound better because it looks way nicer. I'm guilty of it too, and while on some obsessively detailed level it might matter I don't think it does on any appreciable level. If someone modified a Geo Metro and raced it against a Veyron, you'd gravitate towards the Veyron as the likely winner do to esoteric factor, build quality, status, etc. - even though the Metro somehow keeps up with it. I just feel like this happens with audio gear too, we hear what we want to hear.

How do you listen critically to a CD player? You're listening to the speakers, and honestly I think I could A/B two CD players and they'd sound nearly identical. Unless it takes special training to hear it - in which case, why would you want to hear that? - then it's a non-issue. A famous area audio salesman I have been told always used to tell people coming to hear music on his new setups which he tested and then sold "Not to listen to the equipment, listen to the music". At what point does it become needlessly tedious to notice an iota difference between Player X which costs $2,500 and Player Y which costs $3,000. Is that hardly audible iota worth the extra $500?

But these are the thoughts of a fledgling audiophile, I go by what I can hear - and unless it explicitly sounds wrong or bad, I'm pleased. To answer the OP's question on my view point - I prefer single CD players, mostly because I don't trust 5-disc players motors on those big trays or on the mechanism to select the discs (Plus I only listen one CD at a time, I don't need it to do it for me). The basic and simple operation of a single play is my preference. I hate the thought of using a DVD player to play a CD, I have no real reason why other than I just prefer dedicated sources to go in their respective dedicated players. I would agree that DVD players are built much cheaper than CD players on average - although I wouldn't mind playing a CD on my SACD PS3, I imagine it has a rather high quality DAC and whatnot in it (But to be honest with you, I probably never will as I like using my Technics more and I doubt the two would sound different comparatively).