Good Quality CD Player?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

marysue <marysue1980@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I know this is a bit off topic, but can anyone recommend a CD player
>with good sounding converters for listening to mixes at home.

Not really any more, although I will say that the playback converters on
the HHB CDB-800 CD recorder are remarkably good.

>I've been reading some of this CD vinyl debate, and while I think it's
>nonsense to say vinyl is superior to CD, I have noticed that my current
>CD/DVD player really sounds quite bad compared to some of the
>professional players I've heard.

If it has a digital output, consider buying one of the Benchmark outboard
D/A units and plugging it in. The problem is that most of the higher
grade CD players have dropped out of the market in the past few years.
There are very few really solid units made today, and everybody seems to
want to buy CD changers. For the most part the changers are just terrible
from a mechanical reliability standpoint.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

marysue wrote:
> I know this is a bit off topic, but can anyone recommend a CD player
> with good sounding converters for listening to mixes at home.

You really aren't going to hear all that much difference among different
players. Maybe if you buy some expensive external converters and hook
them to a player with digital outputs. Even then the difference will be
subtle with *most* people not even to distinguish between the two.


>
> I've been reading some of this CD vinyl debate, and while I think it's
> nonsense to say vinyl is superior to CD, I have noticed that my current
> CD/DVD player really sounds quite bad compared to some of the
> professional players I've heard.

And you had to throw that in why? Superior in what way? Vinyl may not be
superior in many ways. It is certainly not more convenient.

Some people just think records sound better. Is that nonsense?

Some people think 35 mm snapshots and moving pictures look better than
digital pictures and digital video. Is that nonsense, too?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:


> I disagree completely. I think the differences between the better players
> and some of the cheaper stuff out there is anything but subtle.


Sure, to you. But most people seem to be more than satisfied with MP3s.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

>>> I disagree completely. I think the differences between the better
>>> players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is anything but subtle.

>>
>> Sure, to you. But most people seem to be more than satisfied with MP3s.
>

> The OP was asking about better sounding CD players.

Yup. And I will be interested in an update to see if she finds one.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Sensor wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>
>> I disagree completely. I think the differences between
the better
>> players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is
anything but subtle.

Digital players have become quite a bit better as time has
marched on. If we agree that the best-sounding CD player is
one that plays a CD in such a way that the playback is not
audibly different from the digital master used to make that
CD, then there are quite a few modestly-priced players that
sound as good as the best-sounding ones. I suspect that some
<$50 DVD players can hit this mark.

> Sure, to you. But most people seem to be more than
satisfied with
> MP3s.

Hmmm. In my tests, the audble differences among MP3s and
between MP3s and the origional .wav files are generally far
larger than the differences among good digital players,
including CD players.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> Digital players have become quite a bit better as time has marched on. >


I have an old Sony D-35 portable CD player from the mid 80s that sounds
so much better than my living room new CD/DVD player. I just compared
them the other day because I noticed that the home unit sounded
brittle.


>I suspect that some $50 DVD players can hit this mark.

If you find one please let me know. With most consumer products,
quality is heading south. I'm having trouble finding a decent quality
coffee maker too.

J_West



>
> > Sure, to you. But most people seem to be more than
> satisfied with
> > MP3s.
>
> Hmmm. In my tests, the audble differences among MP3s and
> between MP3s and the origional .wav files are generally far
> larger than the differences among good digital players,
> including CD players.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:uaednYEGr9LpQCzfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> Joe Sensor wrote:
> > Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I disagree completely. I think the differences between
> the better
> >> players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is
> anything but subtle.
>
> Digital players have become quite a bit better as time has
> marched on. If we agree that the best-sounding CD player is
> one that plays a CD in such a way that the playback is not
> audibly different from the digital master used to make that
> CD,

The digital master as played back through what? If it goes through an
external converter, and the CD does too, and the converter's any good, then
they should sound identical. But if the digital master's played back
through, say, a Lynx card and the cheap CD player uses its own audio
circuits, it's very unlikely that they'll sound the same.

Peace,
Paul

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 06:53:12 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>
>"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote
>> Digital players have become quite a bit better as time has
>> marched on. If we agree that the best-sounding CD player is
>> one that plays a CD in such a way that the playback is not
>> audibly different from the digital master used to make that
>> CD,
>
>The digital master as played back through what? If it goes through an
>external converter, and the CD does too, and the converter's any good, then
>they should sound identical. But if the digital master's played back
>through, say, a Lynx card and the cheap CD player uses its own audio
>circuits, it's very unlikely that they'll sound the same.

I have to agree with you there Paul.

I'd also like to mention an experience I had about 10 years ago. I
went to a HiFi store and asked the quality of various CD players he
sold. He compared a certain CD (don't remember what) that had a lot
of openness to the sound and subtle ambience. he auditioned an Onkyo
player that was maybe $400 or $500 with the a "standard" model for
$150 or $200 played back on his best amp speaker combination. The
was a VERY noticeable difference in the detail, the Onkyo being much
much more detailed, it was quite amazing.

So I suspect the differences between a $200 and a $400 CD player are
probably neglible these days, but it sure was noticeable back then.

Julian

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:uaednYEGr9LpQCzfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
>> Joe Sensor wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I disagree completely. I think the differences between
>> the better
>>>> players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is
>> anything but subtle.
>>
>> Digital players have become quite a bit better as time
has
>> marched on. If we agree that the best-sounding CD player
is
>> one that plays a CD in such a way that the playback is
not
>> audibly different from the digital master used to make
that
>> CD,

> The digital master as played back through what?

Whatever you'd like, as long as its demonstrably accurate.

>If it goes through an
> external converter, and the CD does too, and the
converter's any
> good, then they should sound identical.

That's true but I would consider that to be begging the
question.

> But if the digital master's
> played back through, say, a Lynx card and the cheap CD
player uses
> its own audio circuits, it's very unlikely that they'll
sound the
> same.

I've done the comparison with my own LynxTWO. I did it with
my own Card Deluxe. They are great interfaces and I love
working with them. However, good sound can be had far more
inexpensively.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cf05b1prq03jclorhqs2k1v1m3oqp4llsb@4ax.com> JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com writes:

> So I suspect the differences between a $200 and a $400 CD player are
> probably neglible these days, but it sure was noticeable back then.

Can you even find $200 and $400 CD players these days? It seems that
they're either well under $200 (even the hundred-slot changers) or
well over $500 for a serious audiophile player (which may sound a bit
better than a $19.95 player).

Though I suppose you can find anything you want at any price on eBay.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <cf05b1prq03jclorhqs2k1v1m3oqp4llsb@4ax.com>
> JulianPAdamsNo@SpamHotmail.Com writes:
>
>> So I suspect the differences between a $200 and a $400 CD
player are
>> probably neglible these days, but it sure was noticeable
back then.
>
> Can you even find $200 and $400 CD players these days?

http://www.fullcompass.com/product [...] px?cat=694

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1119007974k@trad...

> Can you even find $200 and $400 CD players these days? It seems that
> they're either well under $200 (even the hundred-slot changers) or
> well over $500 for a serious audiophile player (which may sound a bit
> better than a $19.95 player)

Yes, you can indeed find quite a number of CD players if you look for them
in the "Professional" listings.

For instance I have what I believe to be quite a good CD player by Marantz,
the PMD325, which features balanced XLR outputs, Index Search, digital
output, etc., i.e. a number of features which even many of the so-called
high-end CD players do not offer. I also think that this player sounds
quite good. I only paid $369 for it brand new including shipping.

"Professional" equipment does not feature fancy machined front panels or
other visual niceties, but it is usually built quite well because if it
would fail during a broadcast, or similar activity, all hell would break
loose.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 18 Jun 2005 09:49:43 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:
>Features, features, features - that's what you get when you look at
>"professonal" CD players - things that DJs and broadcast production
>rooms need (including rack mounting and operating levels that
>interface with other professional gear) that people buying for their
>living rooms don't need. Arny says that a number of sub-$100 players
>he's used recently also "sound quite good."
....
>Still, there are only a few manufacturers of disk transport
>mechanisms, and they've gotta use one of those. That's the most
>vulnerable part.

I've been wondering about that very question. When you say "disk
transport mechanism" do you mean the just the spindle motor and
controller, laser head and its movement controller, and whatever
electromechanical devices are needed to get the disc in and out of
playing position? Or is the electronics to collect and process laser
bits into S/PDIF or whatever is the first "audio" signal format
included in the "transport"?

My question corresponds to back in the day, when some reel-to-reel
tape fanatics would wire outboard preamp-equalizers directly to their
playback heads to bypass the built-in low-level electronics. What is
the "lowest" level at which a designer of exotic CD players can take
control of the audio?

I suspect the lowest level I've had access to is the 5 Volt version of
S/PDIF that comes out the back of computer CD drives. I've been
comparing all the drives I get my hands on into the same external DAC,
and there are dramatic differences, with absolutely no correlation to
brand name or price. Is that digital output earlier or later in the
signal chain than the digital jack on the back of a pro or high-end CD
player? In my experience PC drive digital outputs sound better than
the few fancy CD player digital outs I've tried.

Loren

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <lsu8b19kd47c7o8060j8dugsgua2vm806n@4ax.com> loren@pacific.net writes:

> When you say "disk
> transport mechanism" do you mean the just the spindle motor and
> controller, laser head and its movement controller, and whatever
> electromechanical devices are needed to get the disc in and out of
> playing position? Or is the electronics to collect and process laser
> bits into S/PDIF or whatever is the first "audio" signal format
> included in the "transport"?

I don't know. I've never built a CD player so I don't know were the
hard parts stop. I was thinking of the mechanical parts which would
include the laser and servo. But I know that there are people who will
argue that the mechanical stability doesn't matter as long as you have
a buffer big enough so that you can always clock the data out at a
constant rate. But if it was all that simple, we wouldn't be having
this discussion.

> My question corresponds to back in the day, when some reel-to-reel
> tape fanatics would wire outboard preamp-equalizers directly to their
> playback heads to bypass the built-in low-level electronics. What is
> the "lowest" level at which a designer of exotic CD players can take
> control of the audio?

I suppose it depends on the economics. If you can buy a good-enough
transport so that you can make a really good CD player by attaching a
really good D/A converter then it's cheaper not to make your own
transport. Putting outboard electronics on a tape deck is exactly
analogous to using an outboard preamp rather than a console's (or
recorder's) mic preamp. You can make a better one than the
manufacturer built in, so if you want better audio quality, this is
one way you can improve it.

The question is, can you make the best CD player you can imagine by
taking a $50 CD player and connecting its digital output to a $6,000
D/A converter? Or can you make it even better if you built a $6,000
transport too? I don't know.

> I suspect the lowest level I've had access to is the 5 Volt version of
> S/PDIF that comes out the back of computer CD drives. I've been
> comparing all the drives I get my hands on into the same external DAC,
> and there are dramatic differences, with absolutely no correlation to
> brand name or price.

Well, I guess that answers one question. Have you tried several
samples of the same brand of drive to see if there's consistency
there?

> Is that digital output earlier or later in the
> signal chain than the digital jack on the back of a pro or high-end CD
> player?

Probably earlier, but maybe not much earlier - if it's even the same.
I don't know how much, electronics-wise, a computer drive and audio
drive have have in common. I guess that you're suggesting that you
could build a better than average CD player out of a computer CD drive
and a decent D/A converter. How good is, say, an M-Audio Flying Cow or
Super DAC? Good enough?




--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 18 Jun 2005 21:34:23 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article <znr1119136044k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>In article <lsu8b19kd47c7o8060j8dugsgua2vm806n@4ax.com> loren@pacific.net writes:
>>> I suspect the lowest level I've had access to is the 5 Volt version of
>>> S/PDIF that comes out the back of computer CD drives. I've been
>>> comparing all the drives I get my hands on into the same external DAC,
>>> and there are dramatic differences, with absolutely no correlation to
>>> brand name or price.
>>
>>Well, I guess that answers one question. Have you tried several
>>samples of the same brand of drive to see if there's consistency
>>there?
>
>My questions:
> - what is that external DAC? Does it clock properly?

I'm using the ART DI/O. It auto-synchs to the incoming signal, so I
guess that puts the clock stability of the CD drive at the heart of
this.

> - have you tried measuring the error rate on the drive?

No, I haven't dug that deeply. Can it be done relatively simply and
non-destructively? If I pop the lid off the drive, is there going to
be a test point marked "error" or something? What do I look for there?

Loren

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <l9ibb1titrqn8g445ma056jjrj6ev01lh1@4ax.com> loren@pacific.net writes:

> >Have you tried several
> >samples of the same brand of drive to see if there's consistency
> >there?
>
> No, I haven't had that opportunity. (In the computer hardware world,
> unless you buy them all at one time, you'll never see the exact same
> model again.

I know the feeling. That's the sort of thing that makes diagnosing
problems with DAWs via a newsgroup difficult, too. Nobody has the same
system as you do.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Loren Amelang <loren@pacific.net> wrote:
>
>Maybe I'm beyond my knowledge level here, but I'm under the impression
>there are basically two kinds of external DACs - those that synch to
>the incoming signal and reproduce its jitter, and those that buffer
>and re-clock the signal using their own hopefully more stable internal
>clock. Unless I switch to a re-clocking DAC, could there be any clock
>stability improvement?

Pretty much all of the decent DACs today buffer the clock. They usually
have a PLL which locks to the external clock, and provides an internal
reference.

SOME of them have really lousy PLLs that don't produce a very good
output.

>I guess there could be a situation where the flaws in a DAC happen to
>interact with the flaws in the signal sources to bias the comparative
>results, but it would be unlikely any particular combination would end
>up sounding _better_ than it would using a re-clocking DAC.

It depends on how lousy the reclocking DAC is. There are some that
have huge amounts of phase noise on them because their PLL circuits
were designed by people who had no idea what they were doing.

>Actually, doesn't it depend on what you are listening for? If you want
>to compare jitter from different drives, you can't re-clock. If you
>want to compare error correction, then re-clocking will hide clock
>variables and leave error handling as the obvious difference.

The question is whether there are audible differences between drives
that _aren't_ caused by jitter. If your converters are abnormally
sensitive to input clock jitter, that will swamp the other differences
that you want to be looking at.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> Still, there are only a few manufacturers of disk
transport
> mechanisms, and they've gotta use one of those. That's the
most
> vulnerable part. Switches rarely fail because so many
people, even in
> industrial and broadcast applications, use remote control.
So the
> question is - how do you make them sound bettter? Good
sounding D/A
> converter chips are cheap so there's no reason not to use
a good one.
> But what makes a difference is a good power supply, good
analog
> design, and good engineering to keep the digital and
analog parts from
> interfering with each other.

Case in point is HHB's CDR 830 *professional* CD recorder,
which I recently purchased for my church for about $600.

Word has it that the guts of the HHB are actually an Aiwa
consumer CD recorder that runs a couple of $100's. Not a
couple of $100s less, the comparable consumer box is just a
couple of $100s.

I suspect that most know that the functional difference
between a professional and consumer CD recorder is primarily
a few lines of code in the firmware that tells the box to
not take the absence of some bits on the raw media too
seriously.

At any rate I didn't spring for the optional-extra balanced
I/O option on the HHB box because the long term use will be
digital domain I/O. FWIW it interfaces to my Mackie analog
console just swimmingly with no problems with hum or noise.