Jump to content

will a quality CD player improve music.


liebherr954

Recommended Posts

A poor quality recording may cause the performance to be unlistenable. Something bad in the playback chain may cause a recording to be unlistenable, sometimes to the extent that it is difficult to determine whether it is the recording or the playback causing the problem. One thing is certain: if there are problems with the room or equipment that is a problem that can be rectified. It is nearly impossible to fix a performance that is badly recorded, and totally impossible to fix a bad performance, even if it is well recorded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think it would be more about the producer and/or engineer. Jerry Rubin works with a lot of artists and his stuff is nearly always top of the line. Other names to watch for are Bruce Swedien, Jack Joseph Puig, and George Massenburg.

There you go, mien liebherr, listen to DR. As I said to you I am no expert about rock engineering and my experience has been that even labels claiming high quality can be pretty nasty. But, if you've noted anything I've had to say, fine engineering is at the heart and without it the magic won't happen. Rock labels have been less reliable than some of the jazz/classical/acoustic labels about getting the fine engineering through to the listener. That's why I said you pretty much, as Pogo the Possum used to say, have to "pays yer dollar and take yer choice." I've hear stuff from labels claiming "audiophile" quality that sounded awful.

You will know the "good stuff" when you hear it. If it sux, just toss it and continue the quest.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a completely different and unconnected 2-channel setup that is side by side in my TV room with my 7.1 setup. Other than internet radio, I NEVER use the HT system for music as it is sonically inferior in every way to my 2-channel system for music playback. Indeed, I've never heard a HT system that I thought did a better job with music than a 2-channel system, even playing surround-sound encoded music. I guess it's all the digital screwing around going on in the HT receiver that causes the problem. My HT system is Pioneer with Klipsch speakers, and the 2-channel is a Linn preamp/Adcom amp/Harmon Kardon top line CD player, and JBL Summit speakers. So I don't think a dedicated CD player will help because I tried feeding my HT system with my CD player and through the Summits, with mediocre results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quality of the source is the key factor in SQ. A bad source can be made accetable for Hi-fi fans. The room and the equipment is the second greatest factor IMO. Next the business of digital vs analog becomes a cloak of smoke. If the source started out analog, simply keep it that way. If the source started out digital, simply keep it that way. Converting a digital source to analog can't be better if measured objectively. Now subjective opinion is why audio forums stay alive and we all enjoy the discussions. A nearfield setup wether digital or analog is one of the best listening experiences for an audiophile. Tower speakers are not part of the nearfield setup IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seem to be 2 opinions here. Mine (the right one [;)]), and those who think it's all in the source material. Do you really think the OP has no good source material in his collection? Come on. The bottom line is you need a different amp for 2-channel. Period. Come to my house and I'll demonstrate. Bring ANY source material you like. I'll even play my "Mallete CD" for you.

Are there any HT receivers that sound good for 2-channel listening? One that can top my Scott 299b or my VRDs/BBX combo for example? Maybe, but I've never heard one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m gonna have to agree with garymd and T.H.E. Droid on this

one; for high-end 2-channel listening, you need 2-channel equipment!

With all due respect to Dave; having heard his awesome system

on multiple occasions, and every time I leave (in awe), I’m wondering how in

heck he gets a surround system to sound that good, with a 2-channel source! But

then again, Dave has forgotten more about this crazy hobby than most of us will

ever know.

Bottom line, IMHO, multi-channel ‘receivers’ have way too

much signal processing and other nonsense going on to do justice to simply

amplifying the signal and sending it on its way.

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seem to be 2 opinions here. Mine (the right one Wink), and those who think it's all in the source material. Do you really think the OP has no good source material in his collection? Come on. The bottom line is you need a different amp for 2-channel. Period. Come to my house and I'll demonstrate. Bring ANY source material you like. I'll even play my "Mallete CD" for you.

Are there any HT receivers that sound good for 2-channel listening? One that can top my Scott 299b or my VRDs/BBX combo for example? Maybe, but I've never heard one.

I think in most cases you may be correct in your opionion. However, I am very pleased with my McIntosh MX135 when used for 2-channel use. I have a pair of amp.'s (bi-amp'ed) powering a nice pair of Klipsch speakers, that are part of my HT setup, that I also use for 2-channel listening. On occasion I will employ my sub, but not that often. The result is very hard to beat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose there are ways to muck it up, but one would think that a properly set up multi channel receiver when switched to 2 channel mode would completely divorce itself from all but 2 channel operation.

This at least APPEARS to be the case in those I've owned. Whilst having a nice 2 channel vacuum tube preamp and matching amp is certainly a very nice thing (which I experience daily) if you are good with SS I am at a loss as to why switching it to 2 channel mode isn't just fine for the "purist" unless it is not a good amp in the first place and isn't correctly designed to provide a "real" 2 channel mode.

I am no engineer...and perhaps it's a good time for somebody with the qualifications to do it to explain why what I am saying won't work. Always ready to learn...

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read your(op)post&understand although as stated in a few pages there are different opinions on certain setups with some tracks to another. Altogether from all iv read in your thread i agree with most. I will say the amount of power pushing your monitors has a large impact on them. Also the cables from opticle,hdmi to rcas it takes time to adjust your acoustic staging. iv went fromhuge gold $200 rcas to a $40 opticle cable and that changed all tracks completely. Basically like never hearing the music before then to hdmi is a new direction of listening. your 2ch monitors can take some watts, large. Iv bounced around through years and speakers and receivers etc...you know the game. Once i switched back to optical after many years iv stayed put on my 2 ch setup in my theater room. now on my anolog 2 ch bedroomradio which is the daily testing groundfor the new speakers i get to push til the next. Now in there im using thick radio shack not gold rcas and it drastically drops quality but with a good processor and amp i run a sony 5 disc changer and currently running some old ar towers and girlfreinds hooked on them as am i. My 1st post in this great klipsch arena of forum i hope i kept on track. if i read you correctly to buy a marble stable stand with an $1800 swiss cd player it can make a bit of difference yet it sounds like you got it going fine still more power would push your drivers at you at a stable rate of sound

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I didn't state that very clearly.

My point was I didn't think the OP was experiencing a "good vs poor quality recording" issue. My point was that my experience tells me many HT recievers don't do a very good job with 2-channel music and trying a different reciever without spending a lot of money would be the best bang for the buck solution.

I apologize for my unclear post. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.......Smile

Two HT amp purchases convinced my the digital circuits 'dirty ' the signal path in some way. I did not mind, it was encouragment to experiment with tube amps 10 years ago.

Tubes have produced music realism I could not duplicate with my HT and SS experiements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard a lot of SS avr's produce very nice two channel listening setup as well as do HT. In general the cd or BD player determine how thing are feed to the avr. Denon Link and Pioneers PQLS BDP reduce jitter and help improve sound clarity and detail if setup with a matching avr.. So, some player are better than others for a particular system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question: The best CD player in the world is the cheapest one with an optical interface to your DAC which in this case is your surround receiver.

My ears tell me the surround receivers EQ and DSPs are tweaked for their specific class D amps to clean up or mask any deficiencies class D vs class A.

Take the receiver's EQ and DSPs out of the equation by using the most direct mode you have aka source direct, or pcm direct or whatever they call it. This bypasses all of the circuits and goes straight to the pre-amp. Simplest approach as stated above.

It sounds like you are already going directly from your pre-amp into Emotive class A, AB amps.

I haven't compared Emotiva Amps to Yamaha's or Macs class As, but there would be nowhere to go but down IMHO.

The patch cords between your receiver and amp are important, so gold plated ends and O free copper, shielded are important.

You can't have too much damping in a room, particularly with a cement floor and walls, I would also get the speakers off of the floor so they don't dry rot, if they are near the cement they are wicking. Also keeping the room dry with a de-humidifier is critical if you love your gear.

Thick rugs and pads on cement are a must, something heavy on the back wall like a hanging carpet, or velor or foam backed curtains like a theater.

Hope this helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The optical connection to the DAC has less jitter compared to HDMI from the player to the avr. The Yamaha RX-V3900: SPDIF: 0.183 ns
HDMI: 7.7 ns jitter rates. The HDMI can be 40x higher with a definet loss of music fidelity. I just use the Yamaha avr has an example but it is not alone. Also using pure direct cut out a lot of the avr's processes going on around the DAC which is affected by noise in the avr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question: The best CD player in the world is the cheapest one with an optical interface to your DAC which in this case is your surround receiver.

Whilst I have some quibbles with other bits of your post I'll keep to myself, this is, as far as it goes TRVTH.

"As far as it goes..." only in that the cheapest CD player is any CD drive on a computer, and any computer with a 1701HD chipset or better will equal all but the best CD players. WIth a truly high end card, such as Card Deluxe, it will stand against anything at any price. So it isn't necessary to be chained to the DAC in your reciever.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

As to the optical interface in stereo gear, I have never studied it.

The receiver has to derive the clock from the signal.

I assume the signal and the clock are one way only simplex and not duplex, unless there is some need to lock the clocks for buffering or flow control which seems beyond the needs of stereo.

Like data protocols, is there framing for the data bits and is the timing derived from the timing bits in the protocol? How robust is the protocol?

Also, is the signaling binary or do they get cute on optical?

I hadn't given it a lot of thought. Once the receiver derives the clock, so it knows where and when to look, its a matter of feeding the decoder at the speed it wants, so as a design issue, I don't know if the DAC guys put the data buffering in the receiver chips-set or the DAC chip-set to address any clock drift or over-speed issues. I would do both, but I'm not a stereo designer.

My comments were based on optical isolation, letting the receiver's DAC decode and generate analog, and the age of the optical protocol whatever it is. If there are inferior optical driver chip sets that cause too much drift or can't handle drift that would be disappointing considering that age of the technology.

For reference, I should have said, get any TOTL Blue Ray player ($100), since these are made in million unit quantities and you probably are on safe ground with the optical part.

I have read comments about people hearing phase jitter, but have no idea what they are talking about. Bad DAC design?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read comments about people hearing phase jitter, but have no idea what they are talking about. Bad DAC design?

Again, while I have some opinion on the questions you posed it generally just stirs up a lot of dust and red herrings to go there. I've been here a LONG time...[:#]

My sig states "If it sounds good, it IS good..." That's my opinion. On the line quoted from your post, I am in precisely the same state as you are. I have learned over decades of listening and spending time with fellow audiophiles to trust their ears...that is, I've found only a few that I might think certifiably insane. I generally believe them when they say they hear this or that from this tube or that, or this wire or that, or brilliant pebbles, or whatever. In my case, I do not want to learn to hear these things. I just want to listen to the music and beyond that I really don't much care about one capacitor vs another. I hear "accurate" or "not accurate" and only feel inclined to fix it if it is "not accurate."

It is my opinion that digital playback from a hard drive represents the best way to eliminate audible issues and do so at the lowest cost. JMHO.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP:

Good CD player is worth getting if you want to use analog outputs; if it's just transport and you use digital output, PS3 does the job very well.

If you want to stick with Emotiva, you could get their USP-1 preamp or UMC-1 processor which fits UPA-5 quite well although their amps have too much gain for my liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...