Best CD player?

[RRFL]

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?

The CD has less information on it than vinyl due to the processing capability of chips when the CD was first created.

An extremely simplistic comparison is a stair case.

Draw a diagonal line up the incline of the stairs and assume that represents the actual sound wave.

The vinyl will store the wave as the diagonal line.

The CD will store is as a sequence of stepped measurements and when replayed it looks like a set of stairs.

When the CD player is reading the disk in real time and cannot re-read the bit covered by a finger print, as it can't stop the music by saying "hang on a minute can you repeat that again please I missed that bit", so it replays a previously read bit from it's buffer and the hope is that you won't notice this.

When you rip it to your computer, there is NO SUCH PRESSURE TO PERFORM so it will re-read it a few times before it spits the dummy and gives up.

Your CD player will make up it's own version of the jumping record when it gets a bit much "under pressure". haha

The previous request was for something in the order of $500.00

The ARCAMrDAC will be in that price range and is very effective in getting the best out of the USB port on any computer. Nothing else to buy if you have sufficient space on your computer hard drive.

Wolfson chips are also used by Cambridge and Rega.

My ARCAMrDAC is magnificent and extremely portable so I take it to gigs and link it to my MSi X340 netbook.

Since CD's are inferior storage mediums to vinyl then this combination gives me the best from a CD as the computer has "no pressure" to get the information of the CD in real time.

[RRFL]

But neither is measuring because IMO something like music together with how our brains finagle things is far too complex to simply measure what we think we need to measure in 2011.

Here I'll disagree. A CD player has a rather straightforward job: take the digital representation of an analog waveform and convert it to voltage. The accuracy (or lack thereof) of that process is readily measured.

Fair enough, we will disagree.

But to (someone's??) question, do the players sound the same I say not because they measured differently. From the Wrap-up:

"From analog audio standpoint...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." And, "For those utilizing HDMI outputs only, get the BDP-93. In our opinion, analogue buffs won't be able to find a better value than the BDP-95 both as a Blu-ray player and a dedicated CD player."

Considering they use different DACs and different circuitry, I'm not surprised.

For my new system I will get the OPPO BDP-95 and from the 8 analogue outputs (using the XLR for the main left and right) I will connect this directly to and Ashly NE8800 which will do crossover eq etc and connect directly to the Power Amplifiers then Speakers.

This will remove the need for a receiver and minimise the number of components in the signal path.

My existing 2channel system will rip my vinyl onto my Network Attached Storage so I can play it back via the BDP-95.

I will save on the cost of the receiver as the BDP-95 can do the surround sound adjustments as can the Ashly NE8800.

I can analyse the room with a mic and my DEQ2496 plus listening tests.

So my vote goes for the BDP-95 at the moment, lol.

[RRFL]

But neither is measuring because IMO something like music together with how our brains finagle things is far too complex to simply measure what we think we need to measure in 2011.

Here I'll disagree. A CD player has a rather straightforward job: take the digital representation of an analog waveform and convert it to voltage. The accuracy (or lack thereof) of that process is readily measured.

Fair enough, we will disagree.

But to (someone's??) question, do the players sound the same I say not because they measured differently. From the Wrap-up:

"From analog audio standpoint...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." And, "For those utilizing HDMI outputs only, get the BDP-93. In our opinion, analogue buffs won't be able to find a better value than the BDP-95 both as a Blu-ray player and a dedicated CD player."

Considering they use different DACs and different circuitry, I'm not surprised.

For my new system I will get the OPPO BDP-95 and from the 8 analogue outputs (using the XLR for the main left and right) I will connect this directly to and Ashly NE8800 which will do crossover eq etc and connect directly to the Power Amplifiers then Speakers.

This will remove the need for a receiver and minimise the number of components in the signal path.

My existing 2channel system will rip my vinyl onto my Network Attached Storage so I can play it back via the BDP-95.

I will save on the cost of the receiver as the BDP-95 can do the surround sound adjustments as can the Ashly NE8800.

I can analyse the room with a mic and my DEQ2496 plus listening tests.

So my vote goes for the BDP-95 at the moment, lol.

[RRFL]

deja vu, lol server error, have I been here before, did I just say all that, was that a digital read error, better clean the CD...

[StephenM]

The CD has less information on it than vinyl due to the processing capability of chips when the CD was first created.

An extremely simplistic comparison is a stair case.

Draw a diagonal line up the incline of the stairs and assume that represents the actual sound wave.

I'd recommend researching what exactly the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem actually means...

When the CD player is reading the disk in real time

What rule says it has to read the disk in real time? This isn't 1980. If my budget blu ray player can connect to my wifi network and stream a movie from Netflix, from a technical standpoint, it absolutely can utilize a read ahead buffer and apply error correction when playing CDs.

[juniper8]

I think a lot of has to do with system matching . I think different speakers and amplifiers sound very different with different cd players. I have an older oppo that I dont like with some of my set ups but sounds o.k. with one of them. I have a HK unit that is very old that is my favorite by far in my main system. I read once that any new dvd/cd player would best such an antiquated unit. I dont believe this to be the case but this has to do with my listening preferences also. If you are using horn speakers with solid state I think some cd players can take some of the edge off. I have a NAD unit in another system which completly mellows out horns but does this to much. I suggest you try a few that you can turn around and unload if you dont like them just make sure they are in demand. Remember the search is the fun part! Good luck!!

[tromprof]

What rule says it has to read the disk in real time? This isn't 1980. If my budget blu ray player can connect to my wifi network and stream a movie from Netflix, from a technical standpoint, it absolutely can utilize a read ahead buffer and apply error correction when playing CDs.

That would mean that the CD/DVD player would need a decent size memory. Memory is getting cheaper, but the greater the memory for buffering, the greater the cost to the manufacturer. It would probably also mean having a more robust processor to figure it all out as well, again raising the price. Most people buying a player aren't going to care one bit (I know, bad pun[8-)] ) about any of this, so there is no reason for manufactures to go to the extra effort and expense when their competitors will just be able to sell their players cheaper. The nice thing about a computer is the memory and processor are built in and way overkill for this application, and relatively cheap due to the marketplace.

[cornfedksboy]

Okay, so I think I understand the usefullness in using FLAC and a DAC, and after reading this thread, that is the way I'm going to go. I'll just use my el cheapo Sony DVD player when I want to load the discs manually.

Thanks for the recomendations of the Arcam and Cambridge! They look like great units, but...aesthetics are key for this implementation and part of the selling point to the wifey are that it will "look the part" of an arts and crafts style sitting room once complete so I'm a little concernded about the router style appearance of the above recommended units.

Here's the deal, our 2000 square foot house has 4 living spaces...The kids play room with the Wii will get my older left over gear, my HT room is loaded with Reference speakers, the family room has a 5.1 channel, wife approved, Klipsch Icon W set-up, and now I need a Klipsch Heresy set-up for the 11 X 14 front room. The room has a distressed media storage unit disguised as a hutch, oak bookshelves with old hard-cover books, antique chess set, and an oak roll top desk to hide the computer...you get the idea. We'll add a couple of chairs and a side table to give it the appearance of a reading room and THEN I get to add my 2 channel set-up.

So, along with a tube amp (maybe Sopia Baby) or vintage appearing SS (Yamaha, HK) I'll throw down some oak Heresys and I'll need a DAC.

Here's the question: Any high recommendations on cool semi-vintage appearing DACs?

The Peachtree iDac might do the trick, but currently only comes in black (versus the Nova Integrated Amp which has wood grain) and is $1000.00. http://www.hideflifestyle.com/peachtree-idac-ipod-dock-and-dac-in-a-single-chassis.html

Maybe a Music Hall DAC 25.3. http://www.musichallaudio.com/detail.php?p=68

Musical Fidelity M1. http://www.musicalfidelity.com/products/M1-Series/M1DAC/M1DAC.asp

What else is out there that has the proper fidelity and appearance, espescially under $500.00 (although I will pay more for ideal sound/aesthetic combo).

Thanks!

[cornfedksboy]

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!

FYI...I noticed that Pink Floyd just re-released their entire library as remastered CDs. I don't know if they also re-released them as SACDs and Vinyl as well.

[StephenM]

That would mean that the CD/DVD player would need a decent size memory.
Memory is getting cheaper, but the greater the memory for buffering,
the greater the cost to the manufacturer. It would probably also mean
having a more robust processor to figure it all out as well, again
raising the price.

Suffice it to say, if my player can buffer and play an incoming AV stream via the internet from netflix, I'm going to guess it has the requisite memory and processing power to buffer and apply EC to an audio CD. 10 seconds of audio represents about 2 megabytes, which should be adequate for the purpose. Consequently, heavy buffering is rather commonplace on some applications, namely the mobile space.

[tromprof]

That would mean that the CD/DVD player would need a decent size memory.

Memory is getting cheaper, but the greater the memory for buffering,

the greater the cost to the manufacturer. It would probably also mean

having a more robust processor to figure it all out as well, again

raising the price.

Suffice it to say, if my player can buffer and play an incoming AV stream via the internet from netflix, I'm going to guess it has the requisite memory and processing power to buffer and apply EC to an audio CD. 10 seconds of audio represents about 2 megabytes, which should be adequate for the purpose. Consequently, heavy buffering is rather commonplace on some applications, namely the mobile space.

While it could, does it? Seems like most people and companies really don't care much about accurate sound reproduction. The cool thing about my computer setup is the ASIO driver I use for digital output. ASIO allows me to change the amount of buffer, from 64 samples all the way to 2048 samples. So even if I am playing a CD or DVD in the computer and not playing a file from the hard drive, it is way ahead of any DVD/CD player that I know of. I guess my point is the computer has the processing/memory brawn that no stand alone CD/DVD player will ever have.

[StephenM]

While it could, does it?

To some extent, assuredly. If it were as serious an issue as made out, there would be regular skipping and audible artifacts on less than pristine CDs. That simply isn't the case.

Seems like most people and companies really don't care much about accurate sound reproduction.

Then again, if the hardware is already there, it makes no sense to just let it sit there. It isn't like we're talking about some quantum leap in playing CDs. It's something that's commonplace in car and portable players to prevent skipping, and has been for some time.

I guess my point is the computer has the processing/memory brawn that no stand alone CD/DVD player will ever have.

Fair enough. I actually leverage my PC for convenience purposes as well (another nicety of my player is that it accepts audio streams from my PC). While I appreciate the ease of use, I've never noticed any difference in quality between the modes.

[StephenM]

he cool thing about my computer setup is the ASIO driver I use for digital output. ASIO allows me to change the amount of buffer, from 64 samples all the way to 2048 samples. So even if I am playing a CD or DVD in the computer and not playing a

file from the hard drive, it is way ahead of any DVD/CD player that I

know of.

2048 samples? Isn't that about a 20th of a second?

http://www.jr.com/product/productGuide.jsp?contentPath=/Content/media/html/productGuides/Audio/portableCDPlayers.html

While walking, exercising or in a car, you want a CD player that will

play your music continuously, without annoying interruptions or skips.

Many portable CD players have some kind of anti-shock system that

protects music from skipping when moved or jostled.

The technology involved requires the player to have memory.

With this memory, the CD player actually stores up to 80 seconds of

music before it is played, so you'll never have to hear a skip.

Some CD players come with 20, 40, 48 and up to 80 seconds of shock

protection.

Sony dubs this function G-Protection or Steadysound, Panasonic calls it

Anti-Shock Memory (II or 4.0), Aiwa calls it E.A.S.S., and other

vendors have various anti-shock protection terms.

If you get 40 seconds of anti-shock protection, you should be okay.

60 seconds of full uncompressed audio runs about 11 megabytes. Considering you can pick up a gigabyte of memory for about 10 bucks (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134657), I'm guessing that addition isn't making portable players exorbitantly expensive.

[tromprof]

All I can say for ASIO is that it was one of the biggest upgrades I have done recently. Before I was using ASIO, I would agree that there was little difference between my computer and Sony unit, both going through the same DAC, but after installing ASIO (and spending some head banging time getting it to work) the sound is far superior.

[Coytee]

What are the best cd players out there?

I have a Sony 5 disk changer. I also had an Esoteric SA10 (list around $3,500 but I didn't pay that)

http://esoteric.teac.com/audio_players/sa-10/

I bought it as part of a large estate when I acquired virtually all of the stereo stuff as well as some musical instruments.

Put it in my system for maybe 6 months.....

Today, I have the same Sony 5 disk changer. I WANTED to "fall in love" with the Esoteric but frankly, didn't find enough difference to justify the price I was able to sell it for.

Others might disagree but that was my experience with both ends of the (cost) spectrum. Today, I'm happy as a bug with the Sony and have no desire to look around to upgrade it.

[sebrof]

Today, I have the same Sony 5 disk changer. I WANTED to "fall in love" with the Esoteric but frankly, didn't find enough difference to justify the price I was able to sell it for.

Coyotee - Some details might give your experience some context.

What's the rest of your system, music played, what differences you did hear (might not be woth the $$ to you but might be to sopmeone else). That type of stuff is often useful.

[StephenM]

All I can say for ASIO is that it was one of the biggest upgrades I have done recently.

Just taking a quick read through it, it doesn't seem as though the buffering of the CD/DVD-ROM output is the advantage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Stream_Input/Output

Its main strength lies in its method of bypassing the inherently high latency and poor-quality mixing and sample rate conversion of Windows audio mixing kernels (KMixer),
allowing direct, high speed communication with audio hardware. Unlike
KMixer, an unmixed ASIO output is "bit identical" or "bit perfect"; that
is, the bits sent to or received from the audio interface are identical
to those of the original source, thus having higher audio fidelity.

Certainly sounds like it would be an upgrade for computer audio. Not sure that it would be applicable to my case of wireless streaming since the PC's audio hardware isn't involved.

[Coytee]

Coyotee - Some details might give your experience some context.

What's the rest of your system, music played, what differences you did hear (might not be woth the $$ to you but might be to sopmeone else). That type of stuff is often useful.

At the time, I had at my disposal (and was sorting through it as well)

Peach preamp (still my primary preamp), McIntosh preamp (forget model, I didn't use it at all), and an Artimes Lab preamp

http://www.artemislabs.com/LA-1-vacuum-tube-preamp.html

Quad II tube amps, Viva 300B SET amp, some solid state amps.

Speakers were the Jubilee's.

Music is primarily 70's type and many DVD concerts. I also have some classical stuff (Thanks Larry! [Y])

Any rumor you hear about Marie Osmond is probably a lie.

What did I hear? What didn't I hear?

This would now be maybe 4 years ago so I'm hard pressed for details... I'd just say that to the degree I tried to swap between CD players, (plumbed into same preamp, I only had to change selector and perhaps content) I simply didn't find enough of a difference to warrant keeping the more expensive Esoteric. Perhaps my "testing method" was flawed.... tis ok by me. My ears don't miss it and the wallet appreciates the value that I received for it. I look at it as a win/win with the person who bought it from me and myself.

I'll say this... it had a LOVELY remote control with a wonder quality feel about it (machined from a piece of aluminum I think?) I also now appreciate that it had balanced type outputs. I'd like to get a preamp with balanced outputs and having one with CD balanced inputs would have made it interesting.The entire unit did not have the lighter weight feel that the Sony in fact has.... still.... when I hit 'play' I found that I just kept thinking where's the differences that justify this kind of price disparity?

Answer for me was Ebay on the Esoteric.

[tromprof]

All I can say for ASIO is that it was one of the biggest upgrades I have done recently.

Just taking a quick read through it, it doesn't seem as though the buffering of the CD/DVD-ROM output is the advantage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Stream_Input/Output

Its main strength lies in its method of bypassing the inherently high latency and poor-quality mixing and sample rate conversion of Windows audio mixing kernels (KMixer),

allowing direct, high speed communication with audio hardware. Unlike

KMixer, an unmixed ASIO output is "bit identical" or "bit perfect"; that

is, the bits sent to or received from the audio interface are identical

to those of the original source, thus having higher audio fidelity.

.

True. But then you get back into ripping vs. CD playback

[StephenM]

True. But then you get back into ripping vs. CD playback

Not much more to say there, although I'll admit the convenience factor combined with the comfort of knowing my collection is safely backed up makes ripping very worthwhile to me, although I'll still regularly pop in CDs (mostly concept albums).