Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Want New CD Player

I am currently using my bottom-feeding Tohsiba DVD player as a CD player. I use a digital connection so I am using the DAC's of my receiver (NAD T752).

I am thinking of getting a dedicated CD player and using an analogue connection. My receiver does have a bypass so I would benefit as long as the DAC's in the CD player are better than the DACs in the receiver.

What would some of you recommend in the $400-450 price range? I have considered the NAD C542 or the C521BEE. However, I am looking for the 'best bang for the buck' (aren't we all?).

Any input would be appreciated.

KC,

While there may be measurable differences in the CD or DVD player's D/A converters (or the receiver's) and in the analog preamp output of a separate CD player, it's unlikely you would ever hear or detect a difference in the DACs of your receiver, DVD player, or NAD CD player using program material, music or movies.

Of course, if you get into weird tube gear with tube analog output stages, you may well hear a difference and the tube player will likely be less accurate and noisier than a solid-state player. You might prefer that, so get it if you think it will sound "better" or more "musical."

If you want random recommendations, my Sony CDP355 301-disc mega-changer sounds identical to my tweak, expensive Marantz Special Edition single-disc player ( Those also sound identical to my Sony DVD player.)

Casual tests, the kind performed by many of the high-end reviewers, always seem to reveal so-called differences in sound. But these reviewers will never do a controlled test with duplicate CDs running in sync in both players, output levels identical, and instantaneous switching. When you do that, differences you thought you heard that are purely a product of your expectation or imagination, suddenly evaporate. I once did such a comparison between a $20,000 high-end outboard D/A converter and a run-of-the-mill CD player, and there were no audible differences. Nada.

Regards,

if you are still reading and if I am following you correctly......you are saying if I have the Pioneer 563A do it all player, I won't hear any audible difference by buying a NAD 562?? That is what I am reading from you correct?? I would be just using analog connections. I have a NAD 352 integrated amp.
Thanks in advance.......

Alan:

I am a few weeks from making my purchase of M60s for fronts, a Denon 3803 and a sub. I currently have a $60 Panasonic DVD player I purchased 2 years ago that also plays CDs. We use it to watch our DVD shows on a 10-year-old CRT TV (remember those). I hope to upgrade to a nice flat screen in about 2 years, when the price gets to the level I’m comfortable with.

Right now, I am inclined to use my Panasonic as my source player, till I feel I can comfortably purchase an $800 —“quality” player (i.e. Denon 2900). But lately, I’ve seriously doubted whether or not spending $800 to $1000 in a player for CDs and DVD would change the audio quality—I didn’t say video—in any way, whatsoever.

Quick background of where my opinions come from. In the past six months, I’ve observed the audio/video industry to be full of snake oil comments and suggestions from not only salesman, but also manufactures. I believe this has been caused by the simple fact that technology to produce hi-fi audio is cheaply available to all manufactures; however, manufactures need to differentiate themselves, thus they market their CD/DVD players as better quality, when in fact they probably have NO perceivable difference. I can’t prove this and have nothing to support that assertion; however, my experience in other areas—as well as computer technology—confirms this assertion to me.

You said you noted no difference in the quality between the $20K and the cheaper players. In that example, what was the player functioning as? Did it do audio AND video? How were the players connected to the Receiver? My Panasonic DVD-S35 has the optical out, that I figure would give better quality than RCA R/L. But I have no real idea just why. Could you please explain the most ideal way to connect a CD/DVD player to your receiver and explain just where D/A conversion occurs. I assume it is always at the player, but it sounds like the Receiver can do that too.

Sorry for such lame questions. I’m just trying to cut through the bull that so many manufactures and review folk give about source products.

TK

Todd, Alan apparently logged out about an hour before your question and he may or may not get back to the thread. In the meantime I'll add some comments. Yes, if you get a 562 there should be no audible difference between it and your 563 in playing CDs if the volume level is calibrated to be equal(output levels of players vary slightly and this can lead to the misimpression that the slightly louder one is better). You mention that you'd be using the analog connections, so I gather that you may be thinking of possible differences between the DACs in the two players. Your 563 uses the excellent Texas Instruments(Burr-Brown)DSD1791, as shown in the DVD player table here . The Wolfson DAC in the 562 may measure slightly higher, but the 1791 specs already exceed the needs of human ears and the program material, as is typical of the inexpensive(maybe $1 each in quantity) DACs available to manufacturers today. So the Burr-Brown 1791 in no way should be considered audibly inferior and you shouldn't be concerned about a difference in DACs, which is an outdated concept.

Speaking of Alan's broad experience and his mention of blind tests, I ran into this informative and somewhat humorous old test conducted by Dr. Lipshitz at which Alan was present(wonder if he got his watch back). Ivor Tiefenbrun, the maker of Linn turntables and(now)CD players and the possessor of some rather bizarre audio beliefs experiences truth in audio by way of the blind test.

I was playing around earlier with my setup. My Yamaha 5 disc changer was hooked to the Denon 3805 via optical cable. The alternate setup was using my old Audio Alchemy DAC-In-The-Box, the same optical cable and some high quality interconnects in lieu of the Denon onboard DACs.

After playing few songs and switching back and forth I found that using the Audio Alchemy DAC seemed to give a better soundstage (vocals more focused to center, rather than slightly dispersed), a little tighter bass and quite different highs.

I say different highs because the jury is still out on that one. Cymbals seemed a little more rolled off on the high end, but more realistic than the very high pitched and crisp sound from the Denon DAC. I need to play with more source material to make a final decision which to use when listening to music with the M60s.

I did adjust the volume to achieve a constant output when switching back and forth as there was a 2dB increase when using the offboard DAC.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate it......

I am currently an electircal engineering student at University of Waterloo (about to graduate) and Prof. Vanderkooy and Prof. Lipshitz certainly do have quite a reputation. I had Vanderkooy for one of my first year physics courses and he was excellent/a genius. Anyway well I'm still at Waterloo I should think of some good questions to ask them!

While Alan is certainly very knowledgeable, you have to take his comments with the additional knowledge that in the electronics industry, it has always been customary for the speaker manufacturers to downplay the role of the components and the component manufacturers to downplay the role of speakers.

The Linn CEO downplays the roles of speakers with just as much verve as "Axiom's resident expert" (don't doubt he is an expert but he is a paid expert, btw. no? if not, please let me know) downplays components. Both have tests and studies. Both tests and studies are flawed. In double blind testing it always comes down to a human to say whether it "sounds better". This is the double blind instrinsic flaw.

Besides, my opinion is that it would be stupid of me to tell you to get the cheaper player even if you think it sounded worse. JohnK will speak to you as if everything he says is fact, remember that. It is not fact. Double blind testing is inherently flawed and none of us lives in a double blind world. Good luck!

Hi TK,

Yes, of course manufacturers need to differentiate themselves and use clever marketing techniques to do so. Thanks to JohnK for digging up the Boston Audio Society report by Stan Lipschitz of the blind tests of Linn's Ivor Tiefunbrun's nutty assertions about D/A converters as well as the presence of digital watches in a listening room. Speaking of snake oil, Tiefunbrun is a master. At the time of those tests, Linn had a pre-eminent spot in high-end audio marketing its turntable, so of course it was in Linn's interest to put down digital recordings and DACs. Curious how a few years later Linn introduced its own CD players. . !

After those tests, at which I was present, Tiefunbrun made the lame excuse of having a cold, which prevented him from scoring better than chance would have predicted.

When you use an optical connection from your CD player to your A/V receiver, the conversion takes place in the A/V receiver. The optical (or coaxial) digital connection bypasses the CD player's DACs and routes the digital data stream from the CD player's pickup through to the receiver's D/A converters. This connection bypasses the CD/DVD player's internal DAC as well as its analog preamp. The latter may be a source of slight frequency response errors, which, in theory might be audible (unlikely) but going the optical/coaxial digital route is a "purer" sort of connection.

You can't do that with DVD-Audio or SACD, except for some Denon units that have a proprietary connection. And don't lump audio and video digital connections together. Among DVD players, there are visible differences in the video performance of players that do not necessarily correlate with price. Video frequencies run into millions of Hertz, and any deterioration caused by errors in the video D/A converters will be measurable and visible with test patterns. In my experience, they are very hard to detect with movie playback.
With all but the DVD players that have a DVI or HDMI digital video connection, the video signal from a DVD player is analog. This in no way affects its performance as a CD playback device, and, as I've pointed out, audio DACs are a mature technology.

You must interpret my comments in the context of whether or not measurable differences in performance on the test bench using test signals ever translate into audible differences with music. My point about the comparisons of the expensive outboard D/A converters and the inexpensive and expensive CD players (using their own internal DACs) or bypassing them through the $20,000 outboard DAC is that no audible differences existed in my tests. No video was involved. Digital video is a relatively recent development (mid-'90s) with the introduction of the DVD.

There are measurable differences, for example, in the noise floor of cheap universal DVD/CD/SACD/DVD-Audio players and expensive ones. The cheap ones may have noise floors no better than -70 dB, instead of perhaps -90 or -100 dB. Is that audible? Yes, with test signals. Can you hear it with music programming on DVD-Audio or SACD? It's unlikely, but ask me that in a few months when I've done some more tests of cheap universal players vs. expensive ones.

Regards,

yeah but in the real world if one can get one's hands on a $2,000 player and a $150 player and if one thinks the $2,000 player sounds better, what should one do? if the person wants to enjoy his/her sound, it would seem to be unwise to tell this person to buy the cheaper player simply because scientists said there is no difference. those experiments have nothing to do with said person's bias. those biases are indeed real. and the normal person isn't likely to put each player into a perfectly controlled environment that will prove to them they are the same. so, in the real world, the average person is always left to their biases and what/which devices make them feel better. always.

"which devices make them feel better": Yes. Therefore buy the more expensive cd player? Not always. If I heard those two cd players, and felt that the $2000 sounded better, I would have to seriously ask myself if it sounded $1850 better. For that sum, I could buy a projector, or significantly increase my CD/DVD collection, or build myself a new top of the line PC. Now if the person in question had 2k to drop on a cd player, and was fine with that, then sure, buy it. There's no thought required. But in terms of "feeling better" about a purchase, as you said, it can often be the right decision to buy the moderately priced option and free up money for other things.

Well said, ringmir. To use terms from economics, always remember to factor opportunity cost into your purchases, and always be mindful of diminishing returns. The sweet spot of the cost/performance ratio will be different for every person.

To some, a $2000 CD may indeed be worth their money, even though scientific results indicate (non-psychological) audio benefits to be negligible. To others, verifiable audio benefits are a very large factor in justifying increased expenditure. If science says a $200 CD player plays just as well as a $2000 CD player in a real-world test, that $2000 player suddenly doesn't seem worth the money.

Science speaks more to some people than it does to others. And that's the crust of this stale loaf of bread.

Plinko:

I don't agree with your comment, "In double blind testing it always comes down to a human to say whether it "sounds better". This is the double blind intrinsic flaw".

How is that an intrinsic flaw? Your premise isn't clearly stated, so someone could assert whether or not it is indeed flawed.

Personally I love A/B tests (blind or not). Though when it gets soooooo nit picky then it is just plain frustrating. But sometimes it's a noticable difference. This is when it comes in handy. It's all the easier when you have someone to help you. And a second pair of ears.

Plinko,

There is no intrinsic flaw of double-blind or A/B/X testing. The point of the latter is to simply consistently hear a difference, any difference. If you correctly pick A over B seventeen times out of 20, rather than 10 out of 20, which chance or flipping a coin would predict, then you can conclude that A sounds different than B.

Of course, anyone can purchase whatever they want, and if they know they are listening to a $1500 CD player, they have a psychological expectation for it to sound better. But the point of double-blind tests is to remove the effects of variables like that, so you conceal the two CD players under comparison, equalize the output levels, and call one A, the other B. If you can detect differences reliably, beyond chance, between the two, then a difference exists and you can explore that further with more tests. In my tests, once I equalized the output levels and ran two identical discs in sync, switching instantaneously between each, I could not reliably distinguish one over the other, or identify A over B beyond what flipping a coin would yield. Nor could any of my colleagues.

This type of testing forms the basis of all medical studies of drugs, to isolate the real effects of a drug from the patient's and the experimenter's expectations, which is why they give a sugar pill to a control group and the real drug to the experimental group. No-one knows who gets the real drug and who gets the placebo (the sugar pill).

By the way, my background is in journalism and I've been writing about and participating in double-blind and A/B/X testing for 20 years, long before I joined Axiom, when I was an editor of audio-video magazines. Axiom gives me enormous freedom to write about these subjects, far more in fact than I had when I was a magazine editor, where the publishers and advertisers often impose considerable pressure.

Regards,

Alan: I would assume your new found freedom has caused you to spend far more time writing then you even imagined. Isn’t it interesting just how much others have benefited from your liberation? Editors and publishers most definitely have their place; however, it is often at the cost of getting the word (truth) out.

As you’ve already read numerous times, many of us have enjoyed the years of wisdom and experience you bring to this industry. I personally and thrilled to see someone who brings an objective and scientific view to an industry that is clearly inundated with snake oil scams, and bias reviewers who mimic independence—yet receive their salary from publishers who accept advertising revenue from the vendors they just reviewed.

ringmir, pmbuko: well said. I agree. We all decide if certain expenditures are worth it.

Alan/TK: I agree with pretty much all of your findings. I think didn't communicate well enough. What I mean about the flaws are twofold: one human can hear better or worse than another human so test results on one human won't yield the same results for another and secondly, how many people are going to go to the trouble of setting up a perfect double blind test in order to remove their biases before making a cdp purchase? Answer: None. The bias remains. Therefore, to tell someone to get the cheaper cdp because of science, is not always the wise advice. This is what I think.

In reply to:

---

one human can hear better or worse than another human so test results on one human won't yield the same results for another

---

Plinko, if you actually look at a bunch of data, then statistically speaking, the results are the same. You just need a statistically significant sample size.

Once again though...at best you'll get three guys in a room.

I'm all for scientific testing...but at the same time let's not forget real world habits.

pmbuko, you're right. (don't need me to tell you that, just thought I'd let ya know)

It's amazing as you read all the posts in this thread, there's an opinion on something, anything. That, IMHO, is what this boils down to, your own opinion on what you're buying.

I come to this forum to hear everyone's experiences, likes, dislikes, and preferences. However, in the end, it's up to me to pick what's going to sound good to my ears. Everything from gun fire, using glasses, working around airplanes, or even working in a library means everyones hearing and viewing opinion should be taken as an opinion. Nothing more. Hence, it is up to me to go and hear, sample, and rate all the products that meet my criteria. Rating sound, visual appeal, cost, brand name loyalty, and dynamics are all qualities that differ from person to person.

In the end, pick what makes you happy, and not what someone said "should" be better. I do appreciate all the advice everyone has given me in my posts, and like anything, with more experiences and opinions comes more doors of opportunity that are opened. Just choose the door you think leads to your "own" happiness.

Thanks for your replies everybody. I think after reading them, I won't be purchasing a new CD player.

However, I am now curious about a DVD player upgrade. I currently have a Toshiba SD2800 (192kHz/24) that I purchased a few years ago. Could an upgrade yield any noticeable differences regarding video quality (features aside)?

I know the SD2800 isn't a progressive scan player and my RPTV is not an HDTV anyway (if I researched correcty, only an HDTV format would take advantage of progressive scan technology). Really the only thing that bothers me about my current player is when it changes layers...it noticeably skips. I have heard that higher dollar DVD's change layers more quickly and won't have that noticeable skip. However, I am more interested in video quality.

Personally, I would not upgrade to a new DVD player if remedying the layer skip issue was the sole benefit.

Mike,
i'm not sure whether you've seen this website or not, but at any rate, it would be worth consulting if you're thinking of upgrading your DVD player - DVD Benchmark. It contains info on picture quality, as well as layer change timing of the various players.

Mike, how about the Sony 400 disc mega-changer? It plays DVDs, CDs; does progressive scan if that should ever be beneficial for you in the future; solves storage problems; provides touch of a button access to your entire collection; and sounds just as good as a $1500 single tray CD player!

Thanks again to Alan for continuing to blow up all those snake-oil audio myths - it is important work, seriously. Advertising is often blamed for excessive consumption, competition based on false differences in products, etc... It is important that consumers have access to experts that aren't trying to sell them something (other than truly excellent Axiom speakers).

if you say so BigWill...

I e-mailed the local audio shop I deal with and asked them if they had any upcoming products that would fit my needs.

I will quote the reply:

"NAD will be bringing out an amazing new
dvd/cd/dvd-audio player in March. The T534 will have HDMI video output, DCDI (Faroudja) processing, dvd-audio playback and an improved dac and analog stage compared to the previous T533 and T562. It will sell for $499, but I
don't know how it will compare as a cd player until we get one in."

I think I am going to wait for this product to reach the local dealer and give it a serious look.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a player that didn't also handle SACD. Why limit yourself?

I agree. Add SACD and a 5 disc changer and NAD's got themselves a fabulous deal.

In reply to:

---

Personally, I wouldn't buy a player that didn't also handle SACD. Why limit yourself?

---

Ditto.

There's some discussion on AVS forum speculating why some companies such as Rotel and NAD do not support SACD:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=30003e969e6cb7a985b9eb3c4389b52f&threadid=500574