Newer, cheap CD player vs old high-end?
- Thread starter Extelleron
- Start date
whoaru99
Epic Member
I'd say that someday, like some others, you may get an opportunity to actually HEAR a properly reproduced sounds of music by a high quality system and you will realize (although you may be too ashamed to admit it out loud) how poor the sound is you've been so admiring coming out of your computer system
I love the word "sanctimonious". It should be used much more frequently in audio discussions.
Last edited:
thisOne
Listen...
I love the word "sanctimonious". It should be used much more frequently in audio discussions.
I agree, it will (no doubt) balance out the general humility of such discussions
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
I'd say that someday, like some others, you may get an opportunity to actually HEAR a properly reproduced sounds of music by a high quality system and you will realize (although you may be too ashamed to admit it out loud) how poor the sound is you've been so admiring coming out of your computer system
I love the word "sanctimonious". It should be used much more frequently in audio discussions.
I agree, it will (no doubt) balance out the general humility of such discussions
You guys are like rock stars with this material! (Mostly b/c I agree w/ thisOne's first point here)
You've made my morning.
:thmbsp:
ilimzn
Well-Known Member
Ok, this is coming from someone who designed or co-designed a few outboard DACs, so a bit more than $0.01 worth i think...
1) Any SPDIF based digital output carries the data and the clock. The outboard DAC has to synch to this clock, which means that to an extent the jitter performance of the DAC is always dependant on the clock. While correct DATA transfer is possible even in a noisy environment with a distorted signal, badly matched impedances at the ends of a bad cable, the recovered clock characteristics which are ANALOG!!!! and a major variable in correct DA conversion, will be highly dependent on such circumstances.
2) Data carried in the SPDIF link has to be taken 'at face value' by the outboard DAC. Most if not all CDP/DVDPs do not implement any error correction signaling, at most it mutes the output when uncorrectable errors occur. In other words, correctale and maskable errors are interpreted by the DAC as genuine data, even though it might be corrupted.
3) Many DVDP's and most PCs internally re-sample 44.1kHz sampled CD audio to 48kHz. In particular PCs, unless equipped with special drivers, do this in a most unsatisfactory manner, losing up to 4 bits of resolution. Again, the DAC has no way of knowing the data has been mangled.
4) as far as the user goes, in most cases unless you have direct access to settings and parameters, you behave like an outboard DAC, trusting the data and clock to be 'perfect' when it may indeed not be so.
TOTL units are designed to minimize such influences - for sure, your mileage may vary as you may end up using a DAC (ether outboard box or internal) which is less susceptable to these problems, or have a decent mechanism which does not generate them on a mechanical basis - at least not until it gets mildly worn out - the fact remains, the issues were certainly adressed with care, to the best of ability at that point in technological advancement and price, in TOTL units. It shoul dbe noted that most of these issues are well known for the last 2 decades, and addressing them comes to engineering and skilled labour, which always is expensive. The expense in doing so has not changed greatly in the last 20 years. What has, is making chipsets that are less susceptible to them, in order to get acceptably performing units with less cost in engineering actual applications, while the cost of engineering the chip itself is divided down by virtue of mass production, since the same chips appear in many manufacturers actual units. Even though this makes the gap between cheap and expensive less, assuming the expensive is engineered properly (sadly, expense is no guarantee any more as lot of expense may go into marketing, which includes design), TOTL still means a lot.
1) Any SPDIF based digital output carries the data and the clock. The outboard DAC has to synch to this clock, which means that to an extent the jitter performance of the DAC is always dependant on the clock. While correct DATA transfer is possible even in a noisy environment with a distorted signal, badly matched impedances at the ends of a bad cable, the recovered clock characteristics which are ANALOG!!!! and a major variable in correct DA conversion, will be highly dependent on such circumstances.
2) Data carried in the SPDIF link has to be taken 'at face value' by the outboard DAC. Most if not all CDP/DVDPs do not implement any error correction signaling, at most it mutes the output when uncorrectable errors occur. In other words, correctale and maskable errors are interpreted by the DAC as genuine data, even though it might be corrupted.
3) Many DVDP's and most PCs internally re-sample 44.1kHz sampled CD audio to 48kHz. In particular PCs, unless equipped with special drivers, do this in a most unsatisfactory manner, losing up to 4 bits of resolution. Again, the DAC has no way of knowing the data has been mangled.
4) as far as the user goes, in most cases unless you have direct access to settings and parameters, you behave like an outboard DAC, trusting the data and clock to be 'perfect' when it may indeed not be so.
TOTL units are designed to minimize such influences - for sure, your mileage may vary as you may end up using a DAC (ether outboard box or internal) which is less susceptable to these problems, or have a decent mechanism which does not generate them on a mechanical basis - at least not until it gets mildly worn out - the fact remains, the issues were certainly adressed with care, to the best of ability at that point in technological advancement and price, in TOTL units. It shoul dbe noted that most of these issues are well known for the last 2 decades, and addressing them comes to engineering and skilled labour, which always is expensive. The expense in doing so has not changed greatly in the last 20 years. What has, is making chipsets that are less susceptible to them, in order to get acceptably performing units with less cost in engineering actual applications, while the cost of engineering the chip itself is divided down by virtue of mass production, since the same chips appear in many manufacturers actual units. Even though this makes the gap between cheap and expensive less, assuming the expensive is engineered properly (sadly, expense is no guarantee any more as lot of expense may go into marketing, which includes design), TOTL still means a lot.
Last edited:
For me the only time an analog audio signal leaves a piece of audio equipment is at the speaker wires. Up till then it is digital connections. If interference is going to happen then it has to get through the Audioquest speaker cables I use. I have no discernible, to my ears, issues with any interference. I will eventually get a higher end audio card for the computer and see if it makes a worthwhile difference in sound quality but for now I am satisfied with what I have. That satisfaction never holds though.
That is why there is so much debate between the analog world (where you don’t have to worry about converting one form of signal to another) and the digital world (where you do), but that is a hot topic covered in lots of other threads here, so we’ll just leave it at that
I am not knocking analog systems. I think they can deliver the same performance as a digital system. I do think the digital systems are more forgiving, easier to configure, extremely versatile and less costly overall. I have two systems I use for listening to audio. One is digital using a computer and the other is more old school analog. I don't think one is better than the other. They just get from point "A" to "B" by different routes and have different capabilities.
I'd say that someday, like some others, you may get an opportunity to actually HEAR a properly reproduced sounds of music by a high quality system and you will realize (although you may be too ashamed to admit it out loud) how poor the sound is you've been so admiring coming out of your computer system
It actually is like the difference between a TV dinner and dining at a fine restaurant. You can get a pretty good TV dinner in today's supermarket, and the taste of it may be quite surprisingly good..., until you compare it to fine cuisine prepared by a top chef...:scratch2:
You decide if there is a difference.
Regarding the OP..., fix the Mac
Let's not get too snobby now.
Mister Pig
Pigamus Maximus
Well Spoken!
I had tried to articulate a few of these points in an earlier post. But I am only a barnyard animal, and the farmer does not allow us much time at the computer.
You have given a logical and understandable description of the limitation of DVD and computers as transports. I appreciate your description.
Regards
Mister Pig
I had tried to articulate a few of these points in an earlier post. But I am only a barnyard animal, and the farmer does not allow us much time at the computer.
You have given a logical and understandable description of the limitation of DVD and computers as transports. I appreciate your description.
Regards
Mister Pig
The only thing I have to say about high-end, expensive players is that you better check out their guts pretty closely. Lexicon, for instance, buys Oppo's BDP-83 (which Oppo sells for $500), drops it in their box with Lexicon badges, and sells the exact same thing to unsuspecting buyers for $3500.
It's the same machine. What justifies that $3000 markup?
I take this more as an expression of just how good the Oppo machine is. I know my little Oppo 980HD universal disk player is freakin' excellent.
It's the same machine. What justifies that $3000 markup?
I take this more as an expression of just how good the Oppo machine is. I know my little Oppo 980HD universal disk player is freakin' excellent.
Thank you very much for this thorough post. I knew very little about whether or not the transport end mattered, and now I at least have learned something. I recently had to choose between buying a CD player, with a very nice transport, and an ouboard DAC, which would have left me using one of my more modest players as the transport. I gambled on the idea that the transport must make a difference, as it is reading everything...(a leftover idea from my obsession with LPs and their cartridges)...and your post suggests to me that I made an accidental wise decision. Certainly the sound of the CD player (Marantz SC-11s2) is much better than what I was using before.
Originally Posted by OldJBL
All "art" comes down to R&D and good engineering.
Now don't go taking my post out of context. :nono:
All "art" comes down to R&D and good engineering.
Now don't go taking my post out of context. :nono:
That is exactly one example in a field that includes many many fine units. Don't let one apple spoil the bunch, or whatever that phrase is. The high-end community pretty openly attacked Lexicon for that, too, knowing it put a mark on the whole industry, and that many people would think they are all doing crap like that.
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
Thanks for your post.
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
Besides this example, do you know of any other? I was assuming this was an exceptional case, well discussed in forums, etc.
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
I don't understand what you're saying here. What, in your system, is converting the binary code from the computer files to the electrical signal being pumped into your speaker cables?
I mean, you have to have a DAC, a preamp, and an amp in that chain (or, if not a preamp, at least some kind of passive attenuator or potentiometer). All this may be inside your laptop or desktop, but it is in there nonetheless.
Unless I've really missed something in this whole world of audio reproduction.
Have I?
I have the HTPC hooked of to an Onkyo DS696 A/V receiver which drives a 5.0 speaker setup (2.0 for stereo). I have ripped most of my favorite CDs to the hard drive to a lossless format. HD movies are also on the hard drive. DVD/CD/BD reading issues are all but eliminated by doing this. I also use the HTPC to listen to FM radio stations since nearly all stations stream their their probramming over the Internet in Cd quality, or better.
The HTPC outputs a digital audio signal to the A/V receiver and its DSP is used to process the incoming digital signal. The DSP in the receiver handles signal decoding and then it passes it off to the DAC in the A/V receiver to feed the amps and the amps the speakers. Therefore, the only wires carrying an analog signal is the speaker wires.
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
Ok, I get it now. Your point was about external wires--the only ones carrying analog in your system are the speaker cables.
So implicit in that is that you believe the wires carrying the analog signal inside your receiver are better than having separates hooked up with interconnects.
Did I get that right?
Me, I prefer separates (to a point, obviously--I run an integrated amp). I think the flexibility allowed in using separates outweighs the down side to having the extra connections involved with interconnects. I know when it's time to upgrade my Rotel CDp, I'll just buy a better DAC and use the Rotel as a transport. That way I'll have something to run my FLACS into also (should I ever get into computer-based music storage)
I know it's a whole other conversation, but I have to wonder what if any concern there is with getting a perfect read when ripping CDs to FLAC (or similar). Cause if you get that wrong, you're stuck with it unless you do it over.
Last edited:
Not at all. I do believe that quality A/V receivers account for signal interference from many sources in their design and mitigate the effects quite well. IMO, with a "money is no object" approach, separates provide better performance under certain circumstances. Especially in regard to separate amplifiers. For 99% of users the cost of high end separate components isn't justified.
I don't see any flaws in your strategy. The one thing I would say is to really look at what is available for high end sound cards that can be installed in a computer. IMO, a computer with a high end sound card just might run with, and maybe even run away from, a stand alone DAC. I am not saying this is definitely the case but I can see where it can be possible. These high end sound cards have very high tech engineering and R&D built into them. Plus, you can have a software based interface to give unlimited control options. My foray into using an HTPC the past ten months has been eye opening. I am astonished at how well a computer melds into an audio system. A PC is very versatile and can do many functions extremely well.
An example of something that really hit me about the versatility of using a PC for audio functions came when I wanted to listen to an AM talk station that had poor signal strength in my area. For years I have put up with static while listening. Then one day while goofing around with the HTPC, I thought about seeing if they streamed their broadcasting online. They do and when I started to listen I got another reason to love using a PC. The sound was crystal clear. Absolutely no static. Then I realized I could listen to almost any radio station in the developed world with the same clarity, or better. Many FM station broadcast over the Internet in CD quality, or better. I won't go into the other legitimate, free music sources available via the Internet. There are internet only based radio stations that are VERY good and they cater to all musical tastes.
If a person wants a "perfect" copy then they can download an original from many web sites. The legitimate ones aren't selling ripped copies. They are selling digital files in lossless formats obtained from the studios. It doesn't get any better than that. Also, I don't think there is a person alive that can tell the difference between an original CD and a first generation copy made using a decent CD burner and good quality discs. Especially if the copy is burned at a 2X or 4X speed.
myu701
Vintage futurist
Ever hear of Moore's Law? "The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years. The trend has continued for more than half a century and is not expected to stop until 2015 or later." What will make it stop? Size limit. You can't go smaller than an atom, in terms of circuit components. And we're just about there.
People tend to apply this towards all electronic components made. That with each passing year, what was made previous is fast becoming obsolete. In reality, it is true for certain segments at different times. For example, in the graphics end of things improvements have been dramatic in recent years. As for the algorithms used to translate digitally encoded optical discs for sound reproduction, I'd say the pace is nowhere near as fast.
A TOTL CDP from a decade ago has many high quality elements to it. A mid-priced modern CDP of today may equal or beat it in terms of efficiency. It may also sport an improved algorithm that is slightly more accurate. But does it equal it in terms of build quality? Does it have a better transport? More than likely, no. Does it sound just as good? Well... I'd say it may indeed come close. And on some audio systems, you may not perceive much of a difference at all. However, if you've got high quality amplification and very sensitive speakers, you will probably hear some differences (subtle or more notable) depending upon the quality of the source.
Thus, I completely disagree with the statement that anything new made today will trounce a TOTL player from a decade ago. Two decades ago? Quite probably. There have been some significant strides in decoding made after the 1980's. There is also the matter of aging components. Units made prior to the 1990's are probably laden with irreplaceable parts. I would not invest in something that old. A TOTL player from the 1990's could be a very good choice, in terms of transport quality. If the DAC is a bit lacking, then use an external one. But... if you add up the cost of acquiring both the vintage TOTL CDP and a modern DAC, you'll probably be better off with a newer CDP.
People tend to apply this towards all electronic components made. That with each passing year, what was made previous is fast becoming obsolete. In reality, it is true for certain segments at different times. For example, in the graphics end of things improvements have been dramatic in recent years. As for the algorithms used to translate digitally encoded optical discs for sound reproduction, I'd say the pace is nowhere near as fast.
A TOTL CDP from a decade ago has many high quality elements to it. A mid-priced modern CDP of today may equal or beat it in terms of efficiency. It may also sport an improved algorithm that is slightly more accurate. But does it equal it in terms of build quality? Does it have a better transport? More than likely, no. Does it sound just as good? Well... I'd say it may indeed come close. And on some audio systems, you may not perceive much of a difference at all. However, if you've got high quality amplification and very sensitive speakers, you will probably hear some differences (subtle or more notable) depending upon the quality of the source.
Thus, I completely disagree with the statement that anything new made today will trounce a TOTL player from a decade ago. Two decades ago? Quite probably. There have been some significant strides in decoding made after the 1980's. There is also the matter of aging components. Units made prior to the 1990's are probably laden with irreplaceable parts. I would not invest in something that old. A TOTL player from the 1990's could be a very good choice, in terms of transport quality. If the DAC is a bit lacking, then use an external one. But... if you add up the cost of acquiring both the vintage TOTL CDP and a modern DAC, you'll probably be better off with a newer CDP.
Rybeam
Super Member
I equate the reading of a CD to the reading of these words with your eyes. It is when you go to read out loud the differences are created.
I use a $35 Philips CD/DVD player on my main system. It sound so good, I have a very hard time imagining a disc sounding any better.
Save your money and buy more music.
I use a $35 Philips CD/DVD player on my main system. It sound so good, I have a very hard time imagining a disc sounding any better.
Save your money and buy more music.