cd-players

[Henk]

I want to have a new cd-player. What is important? Does a good cd-player give a better sound or are only the speakers important for the sound. One thing I think is a pro is a clear display so I can see which track is playing etc, from some distance (5 m.). Another thing is durability.

I'm considering this one:


Here's a review for people who are interested: http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/tangent_cdp50.htm. Good quality for a good price I think. Danish brand. As I read cd-players are different in the sound they produce. I didn't know that, I always thought the speakers are only important.

Henk

[71 dB]

Well, there are minor sound differences between CD-players but loudspeakers are much more important (as is room acoustic and speaker/listener placement).

So, get a decent CD-player and good/excellent speakers rather than excellent CD-player and only decent speakers. 

[prémont]

Well, there are minor sound differences between CD-players but loudspeakers are much more important (as is room acoustic and speaker/listener placement).

So, get a decent CD-player and good/excellent speakers rather than excellent CD-player and only decent speakers. 

Doesn´t it pay to upgrade the amplifier, if you already own a decent CDplayer, a decent amplifier and a pair of decent speakers?
Isn´t the amplifier equally important as the speakers?

[drogulus]

Well, there are minor sound differences between CD-players but loudspeakers are much more important (as is room acoustic and speaker/listener placement).

So, get a decent CD-player and good/excellent speakers rather than excellent CD-player and only decent speakers. 

   At the price it's a good deal if it has the features you want. I don't think CD players sound different unless the output level is significantly higher or lower than average.

   What I notice for SQ is the room, the speakers and the power. Nothing else really has enough of an effect to make any difference I can hear. I notice the reviewer says he uses his current NAD player as a transport, and it sounds different from this player when used that way. My own experience with switching between inboard and outboard DACs is it doesn't make a difference. Small differences in analog output can be noticed, though, and you can sometimes hear that difference as an improvement. So, 71 dB and I are in agreement here.  

[drogulus]

Doesn´t it pay to upgrade the amplifier, if you already own a decent CDplayer, a decent amplifier and a pair of decent speakers?
Isn´t the amplifier equally important as the speakers?

     I think it does make sense to get as much clean power as your budget allows. That's the trouble with inexpensive receivers. They tend to be underpowered even for moderate listening levels unless you have a small room, sensitive speakers and never turn the volume up. The most cost effective way to remedy this is to get an inexpensive receiver with pre-outs and hook it up to a pro amp with 200+ wpc. That's for a 2 channel setup. The receiver will sound just as good as an audiophile preamp when it's relieved of the power amp function, plus it will give you digital connections and other features you might want later.

     

[prémont]

An untraditional idea, and you have to work all of it out by youself, since I am sure, that no professional HI-FI dealer is going to help you, even if you purchase the power amplifier from him. But indirectly you confirm my idea, that an upgrading of the amplifier is as important as an upgrading of the speakers. Whereas it is less important, whether the CD player is class A or AA or AAA.

[drogulus]

    Just connect the speakers to the power amp instead of the receiver. Connect the pre-outs of the receiver to the inputs on the amp. That's it.

     The only problem with this is that there aren't many budget receivers that have pre-outs these days. Manufacturer cost-cutting has left them off the less expensive units. You can still find them on Marantz (4002) and Yamaha (663). Or you can look for an older model on the web like the Pioneer 816.

[DavidRoss]

Henk, it all starts with the source.  Every link in the chain matters, but if your source is crappy, it doesn't matter how good the components are downstream.  Garbage in, garbage out. 

If you rely on fact rather than theory, you'll quickly discover that here are significant differences in the sound quality of CD players.  Best thing to do is to take some CDs that you know very well and visit a good hi fi dealer who will take some time letting you audition a few.  Or pay Harry a visit.

I don't know the model you describe, but don't doubt that you'll be able to find something of decent quality to fit your budget, whatever it is.

[71 dB]

Henk, it all starts with the source.  Every link in the chain matters, but if your source is crappy, it doesn't matter how good the components are downstream.  Garbage in, garbage out. 

Yes yes but what is cost effective? The sound quality of CD-player may vary between 99-99.9 % (same for the amplifier) while for loudspeakers we have perhaps 90-95 % and for the room acoustics 70-90 %. Now, lets calculate the "sound quality index" our chain gives us:

Case 1 (high end CD-player and amplifier, only decent louspeakers/acoustics)
 
SQI = 0.999*0.999*0.9*0.7 = 0.63 (63 %)

Case 2 (Decent CD-player and amplifier, very good louspeakers/acoustics)

SQI = 0.99*0.99*0.95*0.9 = 0.84 (84 %)

The weights of the chain are not equal so that's why the money should be invested into the end of the chain rather than the beginning. Of course, if you are rich you can buy the best there is but most people aren't and they need this kind of advices to get the best sound for their money.

[Holden]

The mathematics is immaterial - the source is all important. However, the difference between sources is not that great and how you amplify that source is the next step in the process. Finally, the delivery - your speakers. One thing you have to realise is that speaker technology is very old. Nothing has really happened in the last 50 years so once you get a good set of speakers you keep them.

Now all components in the chain are important but I've always found that an inferior source affects everything else so go for the front end if Hi Fi sound is the most important thing for you. After that you tweak your amplification and after that your speakers.

My system consists of a high end Marantz CD player, an amplifier that I've had for 15 years and ditto the speakers. The first thing to go bust will be the CD player.

[Henk]

Thanks for that, Henk! I tried to find that product on their website, but could not find it. Is this a new product?

It has been introduced in 2007.

[Shrunk]

Believe it or not, many audiophiles are now advocating the use of the Sony Playstation 1 as a high-end digital source.  For the price that a used one goes for, it might be worth checking out (I"ve been keeping my eyes open since yard sale season started.)

[prémont]

Yes yes but what is cost effective? The sound quality of CD-player may vary between 99-99.9 % (same for the amplifier) while for loudspeakers we have perhaps 90-95 % and for the room acoustics 70-90 %. Now, lets calculate the "sound quality index" our chain gives us:

Case 1 (high end CD-player and amplifier, only decent louspeakers/acoustics)
 
SQI = 0.999*0.999*0.9*0.7 = 0.63 (63 %)

Case 2 (Decent CD-player and amplifier, very good louspeakers/acoustics)

SQI = 0.99*0.99*0.95*0.9 = 0.84 (84 %)

The weights of the chain are not equal so that's why the money should be invested into the end of the chain rather than the beginning. Of course, if you are rich you can buy the best there is but most people aren't and they need this kind of advices to get the best sound for their money.

But how do you weight the relative importance of the CD player and the amplifier?
Is the combination of an excellent CD player and a decent amplifier to be preferred to the combination of a decent CD player and an excellent amplifier, provided the speakers are high quality speakers? Or in other words: Can you renounce upon the quality of any of these components without great loss of total quality?

[71 dB]

But how do you weight the relative importance of the CD player and the amplifier?
Is the combination of an excellent CD player and a decent amplifier to be preferred to the combination of a decent CD player and an excellent amplifier, provided the speakers are high quality speakers? Or in other words: Can you renounce upon the quality of any of these components without great loss of total quality?

Those calculations are just to give and idea of the situation. The message is: The crappiest amplifiers do harm to the sound less than the best loudspeakers and crappy loudspeakers mean there is no hope for good sound. Also, room acoustics and speaker placement is extremely important but often forgotten. Listening to an expensive high end system in too reverberant room is simply idiotic because entry level system in a room with good acoustics gives better sound.

[drogulus]

But how do you weight the relative importance of the CD player and the amplifier?
Is the combination of an excellent CD player and a decent amplifier to be preferred to the combination of a decent CD player and an excellent amplifier, provided the speakers are high quality speakers? Or in other words: Can you renounce upon the quality of any of these components without great loss of total quality?

     All CD players (at least the ones under consideration here) are above the quality threshold of human hearing. Since their deviations from the ideal are insignificant, they can be treated as perfect sources for the purpose of making a total quality assesssment of a particular system. It doesn't matter that they aren't perfect, because a perfect CD player wouldn't sound different from one with the imperfections they commonly have.

     So after choosing a CD player based on price, features, reliability and reputation, you can consider how it looks on your shelf. That's the point of 71 dB's calculations, that for quality purposes there is no gain to be realized by spending more on the player when the same increase can pay large dividends when spent on speakers and power to drive them. The perceived differences between CD players disappear when you don't know which one is playing. I wouldn't pay money for that kind of difference.

[prémont]

     All CD players (at least the ones under consideration here) are above the quality threshold of human hearing. Since their deviations from the ideal are insignificant, they can be treated as perfect sources for the purpose of making a total quality assesssment of a particular system. It doesn't matter that they aren't pefect, because a perfect CD player wouldn't sound different from one with the imperfections they commonly have.

     So after choosing a CD player based on price, features, reliability and reputation, you can consider how it looks on your shelf. That's the point of 71 dB's calculations, that for quality purposes there is no gain to be realized by spending more on the player when the same increase can pay large dividends when spent on speakers and power to drive them. The perceived differences between CD players disappear when you don't know which one is playing. I wouldn't pay money for that kind of difference.

Thanks, this was what I actually asked about.

[drogulus]

    Glad to help. For those who would like a more detailed discussion of the objectivist/subjectivist dispute as it relates to CD players, here's an interesting thread at AVS Forum that goes on and on about it. There's good information in there about the kinds of tests that have been done, though I don't think tests are needed once you understand the issue. At least you don't have to do the tests yourself. They just confirm that tiny differences don't matter if you can't hear them.

[scarpia]

The issue is how you get the signal out of your CD player.  If you are using a digital link to your receiver, then your CD player is not generating the sound, only passing the digital data along and the quality will be determined by your receiver.  On the other hand, since I am using a traditional pre-amp/power amp (NAD 1155 pre-amp, 2200 power amp), my CD player is generating the analog signal that gets passed on.  In that case it I think it is worth the money to get something made by a reputable company, if only to be assured that it has been made with decent components (i.e., good power supply, good isolation of analog circuitry, good capacitors, good DACs, etc.).  I'm just saying, I'd a avoid one that costs 50 bucks, because that's not enough to pay for even the basic components that should be in there.   At the moment I have an old NAD CD player that I seem to remember costing ~$400.  For SACD I have the lease expensive Sony ES series player, which was also in the $400 range. 

    Glad to help. For those who would like a more detailed discussion of the objectivist/subjectivist dispute as it relates to CD players, here's an interesting thread at AVS Forum that goes on and on about it. There's good information in there about the kinds of tests that have been done, though I don't think tests are needed once you understand the issue. At least you don't have to do the tests yourself. They just confirm that tiny differences don't matter if you can't hear them.

[DavidRoss]

Thanks, this was what I actually asked about.

The problem is that it's total bullshit--which anyone with at least average hearing can rapidly determine by the simple expedient of listening.  Give it a whirl.  Anyone with even a shred of common sense will hasten to toss his pet theories into the septic tank when they're proven wrong by empirical fact.  And that's the basis of science. 

[M forever]

Anyone with even a shred of common sense will hasten to toss his pet theories into the septic tank when they're proven wrong by empirical fact.

Uh...have you ever read an "audiophile" magazine or had a "discussion" with "audiophiles" or people who fancy themselves such or simply someone who has spent a shitload of money on BS pseudo-high end shit that you are now telling him was a waste of money?