Best CD player?

[cornfedksboy]

I'm still a big fan of Floyd, Zeppelin, and the Who, and I have dozens of their albums on CD, right next to my 2 channel system...so why would I be better off loading them all on to my computer and playing them from there?

[sebrof]

Well, not sure if I understand your question but the idea is that you would have another computer just for music, load your music on to it, connect it to your 2 channel system and play 'em that way.

I left this post untagged because I didn't see a "Blind leading the blind" tag.[]

[gnatnoop]

last year when i wanted to upgrade my CD player i ended up buying a DAC instead.

Cambridge Audio's DAC Magic is pretty good.

http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Audio-DacMagic-Digital-Converter/dp/B001QFOG58/ref=pd_rhf_shvl_2

I think you can get it even cheaper than amazon's current price...

Review in Stereophile

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/cambridge_audio_azur_dacmagic_da_converter/index.html

[cornfedksboy]

Well, not sure if I understand your question but the idea is that you would have another computer just for music, load your music on to it, connect it to your 2 channel system and play 'em that way.

I left this post untagged because I didn't see a "Blind leading the blind" tag.

No problem. My question wasn't real clear, so I'll restate:

I already have all of my CDs in my room with my 2-channel system. I can simply pop them out of the holder and into the CD player. Is there a benefit to ripping them all onto my computer and then running them from my computer to my 2 channel system from a sound quality perspective? Obviously I understand the convenience of using my iPad to run iTunes or doing the "point and click" play, but if I already have all of my CDs right there, why should I move them to my PC? Other than convenience, do I gain anything?

[RRFL]

Thanks for all the replies! I've got a good starting point and welcome any addtional info. Keep em coming!

As for a CD player being obsolete, well perhaps to you it is. My wife and I have about 500 original recording CDs and another 500 or so that we've burned. Sure, I could recopy them onto my computer, but as of now I'm still looking into buying a quality CD player. This is similar to the "why vinyl" thread for us tweeners that are too old for vinyl but too young to have had an iPod in college. Nirvana and Pearl Jam ruled the airwaves when I was in my teens.

Sounds like I'm older than you, Pink Floyd and the Who ruled when I was in my teens, but I figured it out, so you can too. It is not hard and not really that time consuming to rip your CDs to a hard drive. It really is worth it, I have over 13,00 music files now on my hard drive!

Just for another perspective - I have about as many CDs as cornfed and I do have all of my CDs ripped to iTunes and on my kid's iPod. I use the iPod in the LR for background music. I play my CDs when I listen in my main rig. I was thinking of a DAC, computer etc about 6 months ago, but I'm glad I bought the CDP. I have friends that have computer audio, and when I go and listen to their systems there is definately something missing for me. Playing music with a mouse...that's just wrong. One guy controls it with his iPhone or touch or whatever. They like it though and I can see why, but it's not for me[

haha we could turn this into a how old are we thread, lol.

I took speakers to my high school end party and "Dark Side Of The Moon" was the first cassette I played, what, cassette, he said cassette. There was no way my vinyl was going any where near that event of excessive beverage indulgence. Then there was Deep Purple, Black Sabath, Led Zepplin, haha those were the days. I'm going to rip all my immaculate vinyl to my "Network Attached Storage" so I can play it lying in bed controlling it from my Android Phone. That does not mean I won't have the vinyl or my 2 turn tables, it's convenient for those lazy mornings. Besides, when you run your "Klipsch" system at 600dB the sound does not get back to the turn table and change it or cause feed back.

The sound from using the computer to read and record the CD carefully "not live playing" and then recovering that back through the ARCAMrDAC or the Sonos ZP90 is equal to using a very expensive CD player.

Just pretend you are 19 years old and enjoy the convenience of the new and keep your "vintage" for those moments when you do "vintage" because you can. My preamp is the year before CD players and my CD player is the year after the first CD players came out but still I'm Vinyl go the vinyl. I still have my multi head 3 motor cassette recorder and my cassettes. Somewhere, I also still have my very first Phillips cassette recorder and it was the very first ever cassette player available. You can see the laminations in the tape heads, haha. Now that's "vintage". Shame, I don't have all those old Valve radios from my childhood.

Maybe I should rip my cassettes so I can enjoy the tape hiss in bed.

[MikeFord]

CD is dead, unlike vinyl where you need to spend thousands to get the best information off a disc, with a CD any current generation drive costing $50 or less is capable of perfectly extracting the contents to a hard drive. Once on the hard drive its easy enough to send the data to any DAC you want to play it on.You can also play any CD or CDR without extracting to the hard drive first, and the quality is limited by whatever DAC you choose.

If I were to buy a CD player I would hunt down one of the older classics like a Sony, I think, 7ES?

[Danzo]

I miss my Rega CD player, it would load discs practically instantly, compared to my Oppo 95. Sounded pretty sweet, too.

Another one i could recommend is Meridian 508.24, what a beast of a CD player, very nice sound.

It is not ignorance to like CD players and disc media so I would not worry about the naysayers. I have media server on NAS myself,

but i do not have to stop liking discs because others say it's 'dead'.

[Max2]

This is a question that cant be answered, not even from taking listed specs.on the best of the best. Generally when you are dealing with the upper or (boutique) brands, the higher the price the more exotic and precise the internals are.

Unless you need a CD Changer, I would buy an Oppo 95 93Universal player ($500) and call it a day. This unit will play just about anything and perform above many players that cost twice its price.

Sorry about the typo guys. HeHe, everyone was ready to pull out their American Express card!

Back to the topic.

Can anyone actually hear a huge difference in current CD players these days? Im pretty sure I cant.

[Max2]

CD is dead, unlike vinyl where you need to spend thousands to get the best information off a disc, with a CD any current generation drive costing $50 or less is capable of perfectly extracting the contents to a hard drive. Once on the hard drive its easy enough to send the data to any DAC you want to play it on.You can also play any CD or CDR without extracting to the hard drive first, and the quality is limited by whatever DAC you choose.

If I were to buy a CD player I would hunt down one of the older classics like a Sony, I think, 7ES?

Wouldnt you still be better off buying the CD when compared to downloading a 256K Generic Itunes selection? Im behind the times, but I have all of my Itunes music pumped through an Analog audio card and then sent to my Receiver. Im sure there is a better alternative.

[Zen Traveler]

Unless you need a CD Changer, I would buy an Oppo 95 Universal player ($500) and call it a day. This unit will play just about anything and perform above many players that cost twice its price.

Max,

If you would show me where I could get the Oppo 95 for $500.00 I will be right on it. I think you meant the Oppo 93 is $500.00.

Bill

I'm going to get and OPPO BDP-95 and I'm also interested in where to get it for $500.00 66% discount awesome value.

Why is the BDP-95 better at Redbook CDs than the BDP-93? Is it also better at SACDs and DVD-As as well?

[Max2]

I couldnt tell you TK. Several months ago I was very close to upgrading my Player to an Oppo 93, but decided to hold off.

I think your questions may be answered in this article. Oppo 95 vs 93

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/oppo-bdp-93

[StephenM]

I think your questions may be answered in this article. Oppo 95 vs 93

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/oppo-bdp-93

Not really. From the review:

Yes there
were slight measurable differences between the players with respect to
distortion, but it's very unlikely there would be a situation where these
differences would be audible.

The audible differences with regards to
crosstalk between these two players would be like trying to compare the
loudness of a gnat's fart in loud New York City traffic if one listener was
sitting in Florida and the other in Australia.

We also ran
Bit Error Rate (BER) tests on both players using Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD test
signals and both players produced a 0% BER which means both players delivered
audio via HDMI 100% error free. Early
HDMI products (ver 1.0 to 1.2) reportedly suffered from jitter related issues
but HDMI ver 1.3 and above has completely eliminated jitter related issues thus
ensuring bit for bit exact signal transfer from the player to the A/V receiver
or processor.

The BDP-93 displayed
benchmark performance while the BDP-95 exceeded that mark to the point where we
were measuring the limits of our $40k Audio Precision HDMI analyzer.

[StephenM]

FWIW, my general opinion is that presuming you've got a CD player that functions properly, your money and efforts are better spent elsewhere: the source material, listening space, and speakers all make infinitely more difference than the difference between a $50 DVD player from Walmart and the aforementioned McIntosh.

[Max2]

I think your questions may be answered in this article. Oppo 95 vs 93

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/oppo-bdp-93

Not really. From the review:

Yes there were slight measurable differences between the players with respect to distortion, but it's very unlikely there would be a situation where these differences would be audible.

The audible differences with regards to crosstalk between these two players would be like trying to compare the loudness of a gnat's fart in loud New York City traffic if one listener was sitting in Florida and the other in Australia.

We also ran Bit Error Rate (BER) tests on both players using Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD test signals and both players produced a 0% BER which means both players delivered audio via HDMI 100% error free. Early HDMI products (ver 1.0 to 1.2) reportedly suffered from jitter related issues but HDMI ver 1.3 and above has completely eliminated jitter related issues thus ensuring bit for bit exact signal transfer from the player to the A/V receiver or processor.

The BDP-93 displayed benchmark performance while the BDP-95 exceeded that mark to the point where we were measuring the limits of our $40k Audio Precision HDMI analyzer.

Geez, what else is needed in the comparo? They basically broke down the differences in construction, components and performance, along with a detailed benchmark. What else were you looking for Stephen?

[StephenM]

Geez, what else is needed in the comparo? They basically broke down the differences in construction, components and performance, along with a detailed benchmark. What else were you looking for Stephen?

I understand. But the original question from tkd was "Why is the BDP-95 better at Redbook CDs than the BDP-93?". The review reveals no special reasons as to why the two would sound different to human ears, at least not based on measured performance. The only real reason to own the BDP-95 seems to be bragging rights. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why. As it is, nothing in the review indicated that either player would sound anything other than stellar.

[formica]

Not relevant to any of the suggestions, but just a general comment on the discussion...

I once participated in a blind comparison between 3 random CD players (a Yamaha, Sony, and the Cambridge that I own) on my system and despite the differences not being as "huge" as many seem to describe in the forums, I was able to tell them apart in a A/B comparisons. The Cambridge was "smoother" particularly in the mid to upper frequency range.

That said... if I were in the market today, I'd probably look into a DAC like the Arcam rDAC or Cambridge DACmagic for flexibility of D/A conversion of multiple sources, as well as their quality components.

But that is just me...
ROb

[Danzo]

Just to clarify, all those HDMI test results also apply to Oppo 95 dedicated stereo analog output?

Sorry if it was obvious and i, being a spas, missed it -.-

[sebrof]

Not relevant to any of the suggestions, but just a general comment on the discussion...

I once participated in a blind comparison between 3 random CD players (a Yamaha, Sony, and the Cambridge that I own) on my system and despite the differences not being as "huge" as many seem to describe in the forums, I was able to tell them apart in a A/B comparisons. The Cambridge was "smoother" particularly in the mid to upper frequency range.

That said... if I were in the market today, I'd probably look into a DAC like the Arcam rDAC or Cambridge DACmagic for flexibility of D/A conversion of multiple sources, as well as their quality components.

But that is just me...
ROb

The first time I compared CDPs was probably 15 - 20 years ago. I really thought they all probably sounded the same, or at least real close. Didn't think I'd be able to tell. I compared (blind, my wife was swapping the disc) a NAD C 520 and an Arcam Alpha 7. At first it took me a couple of minutes to hear the difference. After a few times, I could walk in the door and tell which was playing even before I sat in the chair. So I believe that once we hear the difference side by side the difference can become "huge." And that was between 2 fairly comparable players. FWIW - The Arcam sounded much better.

Regarding CDP vs. DAC, a DAC is probably the smart thing to do, but I know I'll be spinning records and CDs for a long long time. This is one part of my life where it's OK to not be smart.

[tromprof]

What makes one CD player sound different from another is the DAC built into them. What make one a better transport is the quality of the laser and electronics to read the disc as error free as possible. What makes ripping a CD to a computer using a program like Exact Audio Copy (free BTW) potentially superior is that the computer is able to extract the data from the disc error free, or as close as possible depending on the condition of the disc, and save the data as either a wave file (an exact copy of the data) or FLAC (lossless but compressed), or whatever format you want. A program such as EAC also will verify the accuracy of a rip by comparing it to an external data base. Thus bit perfect playback. Got to love a program like that, good and free!

[StephenM]

Just to clarify, all those HDMI test results also apply to Oppo 95 dedicated stereo analog output?

The tests on distortion and crosstalk were applicable to the stereo outputs.